Maranon v. Santa Clara Stadium Authority et al

Filing 106

ORDER GRANTING 102 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/16/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ANTHONY MARANON,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10
11

Case No. 15-cv-04709-BLF

SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY,
et al.,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND VACATING
HEARING

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12

[Re: ECF 102]

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Maranon’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Santa Clara County Stadium

15
Authority, City of Santa Clara, and Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC
16

(“Defendants”). ECF 102 (“Mot.”); see also proposed SAC, ECF 102-1. Pursuant to Civil Local

17
Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the matter suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby
18
VACATES the hearing set for December 13, 2018. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
19

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the proposed SAC.

20
I.

BACKGROUND

21
Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants on October 12, 2015, alleging violations of
22

Titles II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq.,

23
Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and related California law, as well as various
24

state-law tort claims. See ECF 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges that he is physically disabled as

25
defined by all applicable California and federal laws. See Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff further alleges that
26
27
28

Defendants failed to remove barriers to his access at Levi’s Stadium, located at 4900 Marie P.
DeBartolo Way in Santa Clara, California (the “Stadium”), which is owned and operated by

1

Defendants Santa Clara Stadium Authority and Forty Niners Stadium Management Company

2

LLC. See Compl. ¶¶ 2–3. Plaintiff alleges that the City of Santa Clara owns the real property on

3

which the Stadium is located. Compl. ¶ 4.
On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff moved to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to add a

4
5

claim of negligence against his medical providers (“Medical Defendants”), whom he alleged

6

contributed to the injuries he suffered from the incident at the Facility. See ECF 38. This Court

7

granted leave to amend (ECF 44), and Plaintiff filed his FAC on April 24, 2017, adding a cause of

8

action for medical negligence (ECF45). The Medical Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC’s

9

new claim against them (ECF 53, 54, 62), which the Court granted on October 13, 2017 (ECF 78).

10

The case proceeded through the General Order 56 process, including a joint site inspection

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

and mediation, but the parties were unable to resolve Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. See

12

Mot. at 3. The Court held a Case Management Conference on May 10, 2018 and set a pretrial and

13

trial schedule for the case, with trial commencing on March 4, 2022. ECF 92.

14

Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his complaint against Defendants to add additional

15

access barriers related to Plaintiff’s disability that he seeks to have removed in his request for

16

injunctive relief. See generally Mot. Defendants did not file an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion.

17
18

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a

19

matter of course within 21 days of serving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Further amendment of the

20

pleadings is allowed with the opposing party’s consent or leave of the court. Id. 15(a)(2). The

21

factors considered when determining whether to grant leave to amend include “(1) bad faith on the

22

part of the movant; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) futility of the

23

proposed amendment.” Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto, No. 09-CV-02655-LHK, 2010 WL 5174013,

24

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

25

However, “[o]nce the district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which establishe[s] a timetable for amending pleadings[,] that

27

rule’s standards control[].” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th

28

Cir. 1992). A party seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good cause” for such relief.
2

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

2

consent.”). If the moving party establishes “good cause” to modify the scheduling order, “it must

3

then demonstrate that its motion is also proper under Rule 15.” Rodarte v. Alameda Cty., No. 14-

4

CV-00468-KAW, 2015 WL 5440788, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2015); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608.

5
6

III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his FAC in order to include in his request for injunctive

relief all barriers at the Facility related to his disability. See Mot. at 4. According to the Court’s

8

Case Management Order, the parties had until July 9, 2018 to seek leave to amend pursuant to

9

Rule 15. Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to amend on July 9, 2018, and thus Rule 15 governs

10

Plaintiff’s motion. Rule 15(a) is a liberal standard, providing that leave to amend “shall be freely

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

12

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend satisfies the requirements of Rule 15(a). Under the

13

liberal standard set forth in Rule 15, a court generally will grant leave to amend “unless

14

amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates

15

undue delay.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607; Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Not all factors carry equal

16

weight. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

17

Prejudice to the opposing party must be given the greatest weight. Id. Absent prejudice, or a

18

strong showing of bad faith, undue delay, or futility of amendment, there exists a presumption

19

under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Id. (citation omitted).

20

The Court finds that none of the factors weighing against amendment are present here.

21

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion, and thus make no argument that amendment will

22

prejudice them in any way. Moreover, Defendants were on continuous notice of this amendment,

23

as the original complaint expressly alleged that Plaintiff would “seek to amend this Complaint

24

once such additional barriers are identified as it is Plaintiff’s intention to have all barriers which

25

exist at the Stadium and relate to his disabilities removed to afford him full and equal access.”

26

Compl. ¶ 11. And trial in this matter is not until 2022, demonstrating that amendment here would

27

not prejudice Defendants.

28

Likewise, there is no evidence of bad faith, undue delay, or futility. Plaintiff moved to
3

1

amend soon after he was first allowed to do so, as he could not move to amend until the stay

2

mandated by General Order 56 was lifted by this Court’s Case Management Order. See General

3

Order 56 ¶ 2. Moreover, amendment would not be futile, as Plaintiff’s request to add the alleged

4

barriers at an early stage of the litigation is required and encouraged by Ninth Circuit law. See

5

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 953 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n ADA plaintiff

6

who has been discriminated against in one aspect of a public accommodation may, in a single

7

lawsuit, obtain an injunction to prevent impending discrimination on account of his specific

8

disability throughout the accommodation.”); Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 909 (9th

9

Cir. 2011) (holding that “for purposes of Rule 8, a plaintiff must identify the barriers that
constitute the grounds for a claim of discrimination under the ADA in the complaint itself; a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

defendant is not deemed to have fair notice of barriers identified elsewhere.”)
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Rule 15’s presumption in favor of granting

12
13

leave to amend applies to Plaintiff’s motion. All of the Rule 15(a) factors weigh in favor of

14

granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the SAC. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

15

file the proposed SAC is GRANTED.

16
17
18

IV.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is
GRANTED.

19
20

2.

Plaintiff shall promptly file the proposed SAC in the record.

21

3.

The hearing scheduled for December 13, 2018 is VACATED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

Dated: August 16, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
4