Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02188/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02188-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18-CV-2188 W (BLM)

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

SCOTT SCHUTZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE VONS COMPANIES,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-2188 W (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT [DOC. 8]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended 

complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. 8.] The motion is unopposed, though no other parties have 

yet made an appearance in the case and no proof of service is affixed to the document. 

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 that follow, the Court grants Plaintiff’s 

motion.

“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days 

after serving it . . . .” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). “In all other cases, a party may 

amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. 

The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

The Ninth Circuit applies this policy with “extreme liberality.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation omitted).

Case 3:18-cv-02188-W-BLM Document 10 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-CV-2188 W (BLM)

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

Plaintiff argues in its motion that it “[s]hortly after filing his original complaint, 

plaintiff’s counsel was advised that defendant The Vons Companies, Inc., who was 

named as the owner of the real property in the case, was not a proper party and that 

Alcott Estates and PVCC, Inc.[,] were the property owners.” (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 8] 1.) 

Plaintiff now seeks to amend the Complaint in order to add the proper defendants.

Given the liberal policy in favor of amendment, the interests of justice require 

freely granting Plaintiff leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an FAC. [Doc. 8.] 

Plaintiff must file an FAC, if any, by Monday, March 4, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02188-W-BLM Document 10 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2