Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06618/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06618-1/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOS ALTOS OFFICE CENTER 

CORPORATION, INC. and Does 3-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06618-VKD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND THE THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Plaintiff Richard Johnson claims that he is a disabled person who was denied full and equal 

access due to architectural barriers he says he encountered during a May 23, 2017 visit to facilities 

owned or operated by defendant Los Altos Office Center Corporation, Inc. (“LAOCC”). The 

Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), the operative pleading,1asserts three claims for relief under 

(1) California Government Code § 4450 et seq. and California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1 et seq., 

(2) the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51, 52 and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act as incorporated by Civil Code § 51(f), and (3) the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.

Mr. Johnson now moves for leave to amend the TAC to include additional dates of his 

visits to the subject property. LAOCC has not filed any response to the motion, and briefing on 

the matter is closed. Civ. L.R. 7-3. Upon consideration of the papers presented, as well as the 

discussion held at the October 30, 2018 hearing, the Court grants Mr. Johnson’s motion for leave 

 

1 Mr. Johnson’s prior complaints were brought against different defendants who have been 

voluntarily dismissed or otherwise dropped from these proceedings.

Case 5:17-cv-06618-VKD Document 52 Filed 10/30/18 Page 1 of 3
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

to amend the TAC.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for leave to amend and 

provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). The decision whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a) is committed to the 

sound discretion of the trial court. Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave 

need not be granted, however, where the amendment would cause the opposing party undue 

prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. Foman 

v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the 

remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to 

amend.” Eminence Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

In addition to the May 23, 2017 visit to the subject property, Mr. Johnson would like to 

amend the TAC to include additional visits he says he made on dates in October, November and

December 2016, as well as in January 2017. Although Mr. Johnson states that the parties have 

already held a joint site inspection, he argues that LAOCC will not be prejudiced because his 

allegations about the access barriers will remain the same. Dkt. No. 40 at 2-3, 5.2 It is not clear 

why Mr. Johnson has only recalled these additional visits now, nearly one year into this litigation. 

Nevertheless, his counsel avers that she filed the present motion promptly after being advised by 

Mr. Johnson about the additional visits. Id. at 3-5. And as noted above, LAOCC has not filed any 

response to Mr. Johnson’s motion to amend, indicating that it does not oppose Mr. Johnson’s 

proposed amendment. On this record, the Court finds that the requested the amendment would not 

cause LAOCC undue prejudice, is not sought in bad faith, does not constitute an exercise in 

futility, and does not create undue delay.

Accordingly, Mr. Johnson’s motion for leave to amend the TAC to include the additional 

visits to LAOCC is granted. However, Mr. Johnson will not be permitted to file his proposed 

amendment (Dkt. No. 40 at 8), which simply identifies the text in the TAC he wishes to replace 

and the additional text he wishes to add to that pleading. Instead, Mr. Johnson must file a new 

 

2 All pin cites are to the page number that appears in the ECF header on Mr. Johnson’s court 

filings.

Case 5:17-cv-06618-VKD Document 52 Filed 10/30/18 Page 2 of 3
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

pleading, titled Fourth Amended Complaint, that includes the amendments he is being permitted to 

make. See Civil L.R. 10-1. Mr. Johnson shall file his Fourth Amended Complaint no later than 

November 2, 2018. LAOCC’s response to the Fourth Amended Complaint must be filed no later 

than November 16, 2018. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-06618-VKD Document 52 Filed 10/30/18 Page 3 of 3