Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05035/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05035-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAX WADMAN AND KELLY TOPPING,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DISCOVERY BAY YACHT HARBOR, LLC

ET AL,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-05035 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

In this action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiffs move

for leave to amend their complaint. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

This case revolves around an incident that took place on defendant Discovery Bay Yacht

Harbor’s premises in 2014. Plaintiffs Max Wadman and Kelly Topping allege that due to

dangerous conditions at Discovery Bay, in violation of the ADA, Wadman lost control of his

wheelchair and rolled backward into the water. His mother, Kelly Topping, jumped into the

water in an attempt to save him. Both suffered “medical damages as well as the horror of the

event and relive the memories to this day” (Compl. ¶1).

Pursuant to our General Order 56, the case was stayed and the parties engaged in

mediation. That failed. After a subsequent case management conference, the scheduling order

set a date of July 31, 2015, as the last day to seek leave to amend the pleadings. (No one 

Case 3:14-cv-05035-WHA Document 95 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

objected on the ground that a stay was otherwise in place.) On September 11, 2015, the parties

filed a stipulated consent decree resolving all claims for injunctive relief. Shortly thereafter, an

order lifted the stay and discovery commenced (Dkt. No. 48). 

On November 24, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint in four material ways: (1)

to allege two new theories of liability; (2) to add allegations regarding architectural barriers on

defendants’ premises; (3) to remove certain factual allegations determined to be false; and (4) to

remove defendants that have been dismissed.

This order follows full briefing and oral argument.

ANALYSIS

Under Rule 16(b), a plaintiff moving to amend a pleading after the date established by a

pretrial scheduling order must show good cause for the delay. “[L]ate amendments to assert new

theories are not reviewed favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the party

seeking amendment since the inception of the cause of action.” Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists

and Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Even if September 24 (the day the stay was lifted) is viewed as the last day to move for

leave to amend, this motion filed on November 24 is far too late in view of the rest of the

schedule (discovery cutoff of December 18 and trial on April 11). 

Here, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in seeking to amend

their complaint. First, plaintiffs seek to add two new theories of liability, namely claims for

failure to provide reasonable accommodation and for retaliatory eviction. Plaintiffs stress that

these two new claims are based on the same facts alleged in the operative complaint and thus no

new discovery will be needed. This concession, however, does not work. If no new facts are

alleged in the proposed amended complaint to support these new claims, then there is no reason

they could not have been alleged earlier. Plaintiffs have failed to provide any justification for

the delay in alleging these two claims, which will multiply the burden on the parties, the Court,

and the jury for summary judgment and trial. Moreover, plaintiffs assert that defendants would

Case 3:14-cv-05035-WHA Document 95 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

not be prejudiced by the amendment. Not so. Although no new facts are alleged, defendants

would be unable to uncover facts or retain experts to rebut plaintiffs’ new legal theories now that

discovery has closed. 

Second, plaintiffs seek to add allegations regarding architectural barriers on defendants’

premises. Plaintiffs argue that they are required to include each architectural barrier in their

complaint under our court of appeals’ decision in Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Store Co., 654 F.3d

903 (9th Cir. 2011). Oliver held that in an ADA case the complaint must specify each alleged

illegal barrier in order to put a defendant on notice to rebut the existence of those barriers at trial. 

Here, however, the parties resolved all claims for injunctive relief in a consent decree, in which

defendants stipulated to the exact barriers that plaintiffs now seek to add to their complaint (Dkt.

No. 46). At oral argument, defense counsel conceded that the consent decree put them

adequately on notice of the architectural barriers and had no objection to plaintiffs seeking

damages at trial based on these barriers. Thus, there is no need for plaintiffs’ amendment in this

regard because defendants concede they are adequately on notice of the specific barriers from

their inclusion in the consent decree.

Third, plaintiffs seek to remove factual allegations from the complaint that they have now

learned are false. Specifically, plaintiffs seek to remove the following from the operative

complaint (Compl. ¶5) :

Plaintiff MAX WADMAN needed a wheelchair for ambulation

due to multiple mobility impairments from injuries he suffered as a

combat veteran during three (3) tours of duty as a United States

Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. MAX WADMAN served

his country with honor as an Army Ranger and suffered multiple

combat injuries, the most severe of which occurred when an IED

(improvised explosive device) detonated under a Humvee in which

he was riding. MAX WADMAN was chained into the Humvee for

safety and the explosion launched him into the air where the chain

caught him nearly cutting him in to two. MAX WADMAN

suffered severe physical injuries including damage to multiple

internal organs, shrapnel and severe spinal damage. 

The source of this false information remains uncertain. Possibly plaintiff himself read the

complaint before it was filed. If he did not, it seems certain that his co-plaintiff did (or provided

the information). That such a falsehood could insinuate itself into the pleading disturbs the

Court. The only sworn statement from counsel regarding the reason for the initial false

Case 3:14-cv-05035-WHA Document 95 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

allegations is as follows: “Having had the benefit of discovery over the last two months,

Plaintiffs have determined to narrow their claims factually” (McGuinness Decl. at 2). 

In the interest of maintaining an accurate pleading, and based on counsel’s assertions, the

allegations specified above from paragraph ¶5 of the operative complaint shall be STRICKEN

FROM THE COMPLAINT. This is without prejudice to the possibility that defendants will be

allowed to show the jury the false allegations originally pled and not withdrawn until a year after

plaintiffs filed their original complaint. 

If plaintiffs’ counsel intend to take the stand and to explain this “mistake” at trial, then

counsel must submit a sworn statement laying out their explanation by JANUARY 25, 2016. By

FEBRUARY 8, 2016, defense counsel may depose plaintiffs’ counsel on the subject of their sworn

statement. Any motion to block such a deposition must also be filed by JANUARY 25.

Fourth, plaintiffs seek to remove from the complaint defendants that have been dismissed

from the case, including New Discovery, Inc., Discovery Bay Marina Properties, Walter Young,

Ronald Dawson, Mary Young, and Trustees of the Young Revocable Trust. As an initial matter,

plaintiffs proposed amended complaint, which they submitted with the instant motion, did not

even remove these defendants from the caption. Only when defense counsel pointed this

inconsistency out did plaintiffs submit a revised complaint with an amended caption. More

importantly, as the parties have already filed a stipulated dismissal of these defendants, there is

no need to go back and revise the complaint to incorporate the dismissal. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint is

DENIED, except that the paragraph cited above is now deemed stricken from the pleading

(without prejudice to its potential evidentiary use at trial).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05035-WHA Document 95 Filed 01/11/16 Page 4 of 4