Hernandez v. Ross Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 23

Order Directing Parties to File Statements on Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/20/2014. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

GERARDO HERNANDEZ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
ROSS STORES, INC., et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 13-CV-05956-LHK
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE
STATEMENTS ON LEAVE TO AMEND

16
The parties have indicated that the ADR processes contemplated by General Order 56 are
17
stalled due to a dispute over whether Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to incorporate facts
18
relating to additional physical barriers Plaintiff identified at the site inspection. See ECF No. 22.
19
All parties agree that Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to add another defendant. Moreover,
20
Defendant Ross Stores, Inc. has indicated its consent to Plaintiff’s amendment to include facts
21
related to additional physical barriers. Only Defendant Machado San Antonio Partners, LLC
22
(“Machado”) objects to the amendment to include facts related to additional physical barriers.
23
The Court orders the parties to each file a two-page statement regarding their positions on
24
whether Plaintiff should be granted to leave to amend his complaint by July 3, 2014. Defendant
25
Machado shall include why it believes there has been “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
26
the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
27
undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of
28
1
Case No.: 13-CV-05956-LHK
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATEMENTS ON LEAVE TO AMEND

1

amendment.” See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008)

2

(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). If the parties stipulate to amendment by July

3

3, 2014, then the parties need not file these statements. The Court will set a revised schedule for the

4

General Order 56 ADR processes concurrently with the Court’s ruling on the leave to amend

5

dispute.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: June 20, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 13-CV-05956-LHK
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATEMENTS ON LEAVE TO AMEND