Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01460/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01460-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-CV-1460 W (JMA)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND THE

COMPLAINT [DOC. 17]

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 

Defendant.

Plaintiff JackRobertson requests leave to amend the Complaint. Defendant City

of San Diego opposes. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons

discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion [Doc. 17].

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jack Robertson is a California resident with physical disabilities. (Comp.

[Doc. 1], ¶ 1.) He is suing Defendant City of San Diego for the alleged lack of physical

accessibility for persons with disabilities to the La Jolla Children’s Pool, located in La

Jolla, California. (Id., ¶ 16.)

- 1 - 13cv1460w

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 23 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 4
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

According to the present motion, on February 24, 2014, the San Diego City

Council decided to close the Children’s Pool each year during harbor seal pupping

season, which runs from approximately December 15 until May 15. (P&A [Doc. 17-1],

1:11–13.) Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to amend the Complaint to allege the following:

• The Childrens’ Pool is an essential component in the City of San Diego’s

overall beach program; and

• Closing the Childrens’ Pool during a significant portion of the year would

amount to a denial of programmatic access under Title II of the ADA and

related civil rights law.

(Id., 1:15–19.) Defendant opposes the motion. 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that after a responsive pleading

has been served, a party may amend its complaint only with leave of court, and leave

“shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Granting leave

to amend rests in the sound discretion of the district court. Pisciotta v. Teledyne

Industries, Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the rule should be

interpreted with extreme liberality, leave to amend is not to be granted automatically. 

Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to

amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility

of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. 

Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, Defendant argues the motion to amend should be denied because the

proposed amendment would be futile. Specifically, Defendant contends that any claim

based on its plan to close the Childrens’ Pool during harbor seal pupping season is

contingent on future events and thus not ripe. (Opp. [Doc. 18], 1:8–11.) In support

of this argument, Defendant contends that before the beach closing could occur, the

- 2 - 13cv1460w

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 23 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 4
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

California Coastal Commission must certify the City’s plan. (Id., 2:23–3:2.) 

Certification will require the City to first submit an application that includes

approximately 6,500 pages of citizen comments on the issue, and then to obtain a

hearing in San Diego before the Commission. (Id., 3:11–18, citing Zirkle Dec.[Doc. 18-

1], ¶¶ 6–8.) However, the Commission will only hold hearings in San Diego one more

time this year, from August 13–15, 2014. (Id., 3:18–20, citing Zirkle Dec. ¶ 8.) 

Therefore, at this point, it is unclear whether the matter will even be heard this year.

Plaintiff does not dispute that the City’s plan to close the Childrens’ Pool is

contingent on the Coastal Commissions certification or that it is unclear whether the

matter will be heard this year. Instead, Plaintiff argues in his reply that the proposed

amendment is not a “direct challenge to the City’s proposed ordinance.” (Reply [Doc.

19], 2:16–19.) In other words, Plaintiff appears to be asserting that the lack of ripeness

does not matter because he is not alleging that the closing of the Children’s Pool

violates the ADA or any other law. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument.

First, Plaintiff’s moving papers directly contradict the argument asserted in his

reply. Although Plaintiff now contends that he is not seeking to directly challenge the

City’s ordinance, in his moving papers Plaintiff acknowledges that he is seeking to

contend that closing the Childrens’ Pool constitutes a violation of the ADA and related

civil rights laws:

The plaintiff seeks to amend his complain [sic] to allege that . . .

closing it off during a significant portion of the year would amount to a

denial of programmatic access under Title II of the ADA and related civil

rights law.

(P&A, 1:14–19.) Additionally, in addressing the factors used to consider a request for

leave to amend, Plaintiff specifically argued:

the relevant claims have not been adjudicated, the claims are not

preempted, the claims do state a cause of action against the parties, and

the modification of the complaint is not futile.

(P&A, 6:3–6 (emphasis added).) Thus, Plaintiff’s moving papers acknowledge that he

is seeking to assert a cause of action based on the City’s plan to close the Childrens’ Pool.

- 3 - 13cv1460w

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 23 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Second, the proposed amendment includes adding to the prayer for relief a

request that Defendant be compelled to “keep the Children’s Pool open year round.” 

(Proposed Amended Compl. [Doc. 17-2], 6:17–18; Reply, 3:21–23.) Such a request

necessarily requires Plaintiff to directly challenge the City’s ordinance. Otherwise,

there would be no basis for this Court to order the City to keep the Children’s Pool

open year round, including during harbor seal pupping season. Because there is no

dispute that such a challenge is not ripe, the Court finds Plaintiff’s proposed

amendment would be futile. See W. Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Sonoma Cnty., 905 F.2d 1287,

1291 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that challenge to land use ordinances was not ripe

because ordinances needed approval by the California Coastal Commission). 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED

[Doc. 17].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2014

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv1460w

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 23 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 4