Maranon v. Santa Clara Stadium Authority et al

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING 38 MOTION TO AMEND AND VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/24/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ANTHONY MARANON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 15-cv-04709-BLF
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND AND VACATING HEARING

v.
SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY,
et al.,

[Re: ECF 38]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff Anthony Maranon brings this suit against Santa Clara Stadium Authority

14

(“Stadium Authority”), the City of Santa Clara (“City”), and Forty Niners Stadium Management

15

Company LLC (“Stadium Management) (collectively, “Defendants”) following an incident at

16

Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California (the “Facility”), in which he fell out of his wheelchair

17

after his wheel became lodged in a drainage grate that had excessive openings in violation of

18

applicable federal and state access standards. See generally Compl., ECF 1. Maranon asserts:

19

violation of Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.

20

§§ 12131–34, 12181–89; violations of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51;

21

denial of full and equal access to public facilities; negligence per se; negligence based on premises

22

liability; dangerous conditions of public property, pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 830, 835; and a

23

breach of statutory duty, pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.6. See generally id.

24

Presently before the Court is Maranon’s unopposed motion to amend his complaint in

25

order to allege a claim of negligence against his medical providers, whom he alleges contributed to

26

the injuries he suffered from the incident at the Facility. Mot. 1–2, ECF 38. Pursuant to Civil

27

L.R. 7-1(b), the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion suitable for submission without oral argument and

28

hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 1, 2017. For the reasons set forth herein, the

1

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

2

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 provides that leave to amend pleadings generally should be given freely

4

“when justice so requires.” But leave may be denied based on “futility of amendment.” Foman v.

5

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 sets forth specific standards for permissive

6

joinder. Under Rule 20, parties may be joined in a single lawsuit where the claims against them

7

arise from “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any

8

question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” A court may exercise

9

“supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within

10

such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

the U.S. Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

12

II.

DISCUSSION
In order to successfully join Mansour Jamal, Fook “Frank” Wong, and O’Connor Hospital

13
14

(collectively, “Medical Defendants”), Maranon must satisfy the permissive joinder requirements

15

of Rule 20.1 Oda v. United States, CV11-4514, 2012 WL 692409, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012).

16

Under Rule 20(a)(2), permissive joinder of defendants is proper if: “(A) any right to relief

17

is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the

18

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law

19

or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The Ninth

20

Circuit has interpreted the phrase “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

21

occurrences” to require a degree of factual commonality underlying the claims. Coughlin v.

22

Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). Typically, this means that a party “must assert

23

rights . . . that arise from related activities—a transaction or an occurrence or a series thereof.”

24

Bravado Int’l Grp. Merch. Servs. v. Cha, No. CV 09-9066, 2010 WL 2650432, at *4 (C.D. Cal.

25

June 30, 2010) (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). District courts have

26

reached different conclusions regarding whether overlapping liability alone is sufficient to satisfy

27
1

28

The Court is satisfied that it would have supplemental jurisdiction over the claims asserted
against the Medical Defendants.
2

1

FRCP 20, and the Ninth Circuit has not yet decided this issue. See Oda, 2012 WL 692409, at *1–

2

2 (describing two lines of cases).

3

“Although the specific requirements of Rule 20 . . . may be satisfied, a trial court must also

4

examine the other relevant factors in a case in order to determine whether the permissive joinder

5

of a party will comport with the principles of fundamental fairness.” Desert Empire Bank v. Ins.

6

Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Such factors may include judicial economy,

7

prejudice, and whether separate claims require different witnesses and documentary proof. SEC v.

8

Leslie, No. C 07–3444, 2010 WL 2991038, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2010).

9

Maranon argues that the claims against the Medical Defendants arise out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, because his medical negligence

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

claim against the Medical Defendants contributed to the same injuries he alleges were caused by

12

his fall at the Facility, will involve common witnesses and evidence as his personal injury claims

13

against Defendants, and he would be required to relitigate the same injuries in a separate action if

14

the Court denies his request. Mot. 5. Maranon further contends that denial of this motion will

15

make it difficult to apportion liability amongst all of the defendants, including the Medical

16

Defendants. Id.

17

The Court agrees with Maranon. Rule 20 simply requires “related activities” and

18

“similarity in the factual background of a claim.” Jacques v. Hyatt Corp., No. C 11-5364, 2012

19

WL 3010969, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

20

Maranon has set forth several relationships between the incident at the Facility and the subsequent

21

alleged medical negligence, specifically: that the injury caused by both incidents is the same, the

22

second claim would not exist but for the first, and there are overlapping damages. Mot. 4–5.

23

Maranon’s allegations therefore meet the threshold requirement. Cf. Wilson v. Famatex GmbH

24

Fabrik Fuer Textilausruestungsmaschinen, 726 F. Supp. 950, 951–52 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (finding the

25

threshold “series of occurrences” requirement satisfied where the plaintiff sued for products

26

liability and subsequent medical malpractice after an accident involving a dyeing machine).

27
28

FRCP 20 also requires at least on common question of law or fact. Jacques, 2012 WL
3010969, at *4. At a minimum, preexisting conditions, contributing factors, and the nature and
3

1

extent of Maranon’s injuries are common questions of fact for both claims. Moreover, each of the

2

defendants will surely be pointing to the other as the primary cause of the ultimate injuries.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint meets the second threshold requirement under FRCP 20.

4

Finally, the Court finds that permissive joinder of the Medical Defendants will comport

5

with the principles of fundamental fairness because the current parties have indicated that the

6

participation of the Medical Defendants “may be critical to a settlement.” See Stipulation to

7

Extend Deadline for Mediation ¶ 4, ECF 42. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants may be

8

prejudiced if the Medical Providers are not joined in this action because it would make

9

apportionment of liability amongst the defendants more difficult. Mot. 5.

10

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds permissive joinder warranted and thus GRANTS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Marnon’s motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint on or before

12

May 3, 2017. The last day to effectuate service of the amended complaint is July 1, 2017.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: April 24, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4