Cabral v. Antica Trattoria, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER Granting 13 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file her First Amended Complaint on or before 10/12/2018. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 10/10/2018. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10
11
12
13
14

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 18cv573-MMA (NLS)

LORI CABRAL,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

v.
ANTICA TRATTORIA, INC., a
California Corporation,

15

[Doc. No. 13]

Defendant.

16
17
18

On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff Lori Cabral (“Plaintiff”) commenced the instant

19

action against Defendant Antica Trattoria, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the

20

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and

21

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. See Complaint.

22

On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file a First Amended

23

Complaint. See Doc. No. 13. To date, Defendant has not filed an opposition to

24

Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on October 9, 2018. See Doc. No. 15. The

25

Court found the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral

26

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Doc. No. 16. For the reasons set

27

forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a First

28

Amended Complaint.
-1-

18cv573-MMA (NLS)

1
2

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. It states that

3

if a responsive pleading has already been filed, the party seeking amendment “may

4

amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse

5

party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

6

This rule reflects an underlying policy that disputes should be determined on their merits,

7

and not on the technicalities of pleading rules. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-

8

82 (1962). Accordingly, the Court must be generous in granting leave to amend. See

9

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting

10

leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil

11

Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

12

However, courts may deny leave to amend for several reasons, including the

13

presence of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, undue delay, prejudice to the defendant,

14

futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously filed an amended

15

complaint. See Ascon Props., 866 F.2d at 1160; McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d

16

802, 809 (9th Cir. 1988). The test of futility “is identical to the one used when

17

considering the sufficiency of a pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).” Miller v.

18

Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

19
20

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint by “correct[ing] factual allegations in the

21

complaint” and “identify[ing] the additional [architectural] barriers discovered through a

22

site inspection.” Doc. No. 13-1 at 8. Plaintiff requests the Court grant her leave to

23

amend because there is no undue delay, bad faith, futility, dilatory motives, previous

24

amendments to the Complaint, or prejudice to Defendant. See id. at 7.

25

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is not futile, and there is

26

no evidence that the proposed amendment will prejudice Defendant. Additionally,

27

Plaintiff filed her motion by the deadline set forth in the Court’s scheduling order (see

28

Doc. No. 33), and it does not appear that Plaintiff delayed in filing the instant motion.
-2-

18cv573-MMA (NLS)

1

Further, Plaintiff has not previously amended her Complaint. Therefore, upon thorough

2

review of the relevant documents, and after examining the relevant factors, the Court

3

finds that permitting Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint to correct factual allegations

4

and identify newly discovered architectural barriers is appropriate.

5
6

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a

7

First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file her First Amended Complaint on or before

8

October 12, 2018.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13
14
15

Dated: October 10, 2018
_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

18cv573-MMA (NLS)