Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05256/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05256-0/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)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATALIE ESPERANZA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05256-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT TO 

ADD FACTS AND CAUSES OF ACTION

AND VACATING JANUARY 30, 2015 

MOTION HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 20

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jose Castillo-Antonio asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and California law based on the alleged failure of 

Defendants to provide barrier-free access to their restaurant, La Quinta Restaurant, located at 2425 

Mission Street, San Francisco, CA. Presently before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File First 

Supplemental Complaint to Add Facts and Causes of Action (“Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiff 

seeks to add claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b) and California Civil Code Section 52.1, as well as 

supporting factual allegations, based on events that allegedly occurred on September 2, 2014, 

following a mediation in this action. 

According to Mr. Castillo-Antonio, following the mediation, Shane O‟Connor (Defendant 

O‟Connor Family Trust‟s representative) and Defendant Natalie Esperanza approached him in 

Civic Center Park, where he was resting near a playground, sitting in his wheelchair with his fiveyear-old daughter in his lap and his uncle nearby. Mr. O‟Connor allegedly “yelled at him that he 

was an „idiot‟ for not accepting Shane O‟Connor‟s settlement offer at the mediation, and that his 

Case 3:13-cv-05256-JCS Document 25 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

lawyer, Richard A. MacBride, was also an „idiot‟ for fighting the case.” Ms. Esperanza was 

present and allegedly did not intervene in any way. Motion at 3. Mr. MacBride apparently was 

not present. Plaintiff contends this conduct was an attempt to intimidate and coerce him into 

abandoning his rights under the ADA and California Civil Code § 52.1 and constitutes a violation 

of both federal and state law.

Defendants do not dispute that the events described by Mr. Castillo-Antonio occurred but 

contend the Court should deny leave to amend because he fails to state a claim as to the new 

claims. Defendants further assert that amendment is futile because the original ADA claim is now 

moot. In particular, according to Defendants, all accessibility issues have been remediated and 

Plaintiff‟s expert has admitted as much. Defendants argue that the Court should not permit 

Plaintiff to amend to add new claims but rather, should dismiss the ADA claim and decline to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and therefore vacates the hearing set for January 30, 2015 at 

2:00 pm. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

1

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

When a party seeks to amend a pleading more than 21 days after serving it, or more than 

21 days after service of a responsive pleading or motion, the party must obtain either the opposing 

party‟s consent or leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

provide that “courts should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. “Courts may decline 

to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of „undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 

motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] 

futility of amendment, etc.‟” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 

F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. 

 

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:13-cv-05256-JCS Document 25 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

Ed. 2d 222 (1962)) (alteration in original; emphasis added). 

B. Discussion

Defendants contend the Motion should be denied on the grounds of futility because the 

only federal claim in the action (as currently pled) is already moot and because the new claim 

Plaintiff seeks to assert under the ADA, under 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b), fails to state a claim. The 

first theory fails because Defendants have not properly sought dismissal of Plaintiff‟s original 

ADA claim (for instance, by way of a summary judgment motion) and there has been no legal 

determination that the claim is, in fact, moot. The only remaining question is whether amendment 

is futile because Plaintiff‟s new claims fail to state a claim. The Court concludes that Plaintiff‟s 

new claims are sufficiently alleged as to Defendant O‟Connor Family Trust and therefore, that 

amendment is not futile as to that Defendant.

Section 12203(b) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with 

any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his 

or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her 

having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or 

enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.

42 U.S.C. § 12203(b). This section prohibits “harassment against those who are simply exercising 

their ADA rights.” Wilson v. Murillo, 163 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1138 (2008). Similarly, Cal. Civ. 

Code Section 52.1 prohibits interference with an individual‟s rights under state law by “threat, 

intimidation, or coercion.” The allegation that a party engaged in verbally abusive conduct in an

attempt to intimidate the plaintiff into dropping or settling his claims under the ADA and 

California law is sufficient, at the pleading stage, to state a claim under these sections. Thus, as to 

Defendant O‟Connor Family Trust, Plaintiff‟s allegations are sufficient to the extent that the 

alleged threats and/or intimidation were made by that Defendant‟s representative. On the other 

hand, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert these claims against Natalie Esperanza, the Court finds 

that the amendment is futile. Plaintiff‟s only factual allegation in support of that claim is that Ms. 

Ezperanza “passive[ly] accept[ed]. . . such behavior while watching it and saying nothing,” 

Case 3:13-cv-05256-JCS Document 25 Filed 01/22/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Proposed Amended Complaint, ¶ 19. Plaintiff cites no authority that supports the proposition that 

such conduct is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b) or under California state law. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

Plaintiff may file the proposed amended complaint with the proviso that Plaintiff may proceed on 

the new claims asserted therein, based on the events of September 2, 2014, only as to Defendant 

O‟Connor Family Trust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05256-JCS Document 25 Filed 01/22/15 Page 4 of 4