Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01335/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01335-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHARILYN CHHANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

WEST COAST USA PROPERTIES LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01335-SAB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND VACATING OCTOBER 

2, 2024 HEARING

(ECF Nos. 62, 63)

FIVE DAY DEADLINE

Currently before the Court is Pharilyn Chhang’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a 

second amended complaint. The Court, having reviewed the record, finds this matter suitable for 

decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the previously scheduled 

hearing set on October 2, 2024, will be vacated and the parties will not be required to appear at 

that time.

I.

BACKGROUND

On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against West Coast USA Properties 

LLC, Sergio Madrigal, and the Housing Authority of the City of Madera alleging violations of 

the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and claims under state law. (ECF 

No. 1.) Defendant Housing Authority of the City of Madera filed a motion to dismiss after 

which Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on January 21, 2024. (ECF Nos. 17-19, 24.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01335-SAB Document 64 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendant Housing Authority of the City of Madera filed a second motion to dismiss 

which was granted on May 3, 2024, and Defendant Housing Authority of the City of Madera was 

dismissed with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 32, 47.) On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the order granting Defendant Housing Authority of the City of Madera’s 

motion to dismiss which was denied on July 9, 2024. (ECF Nos. 49, 56.) 

On July 9, 2024, the scheduling order issued in this action setting dates, including a 

deadline to amend the complaint of July 22, 2024. (ECF No. 57.) On July 22, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed a motion to continue the deadline to amend the pleadings. (ECF No. 58.) On July 23, 

2024, Defendants West Coast USA Properties LLC and Madrigal (hereafter “Defendants”) filed 

a statement of non-opposition and the motion was granted on July 24, 2024, with the deadline to 

amend the complaint being extended to August 21, 2024. (EF Nos. 60, 61.) 

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 62.) On 

September 5, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

amend the complaint. (ECF No. 63.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended complaint to allege claims against an 

additional party in this action, the insurance broker for Defendant West Coast USA Properties 

LLC. Defendants do not oppose the motion. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend shall be freely 

given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In determining whether to grant leave 

to amend, the court considers five factors: “(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the 

opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended 

his complaint.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004); accord Madeja v. 

Olympic Packers, LLC., 310 F.3d 628, 636 (9th Cir. 2002). The factors are not given equal 

weight and futility alone is sufficient to justify the denial of a motion to amend. Washington v. 

Lowe’s HIW Inc., 75 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1245 (N.D. Cal. 2014), appeal dismissed (Feb. 25, 

2015). “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest 

Case 1:23-cv-01335-SAB Document 64 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 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

3

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

prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [ ] factors, there exists a presumption 

under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 

1052.

Here, the Court finds that the motion to amend is not made in bad faith. Rather, while 

Plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint, Plaintiff discovered the identity of the 

person with knowledge of the insurance policy on July 27, 2024, and received the documents 

related to Defendants’ insurance policy. (Decl. of Christopher Brancart ¶ 4, ECF No. 62-2.) 

There has been no undue delay, and the motion was filed on August 21, 2024, within the 

deadline to file an amended complaint. Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition 

which effectively provides Plaintiff with written consent to file their amended complaint.1 

Further, by not opposing the motion for leave to amend, Defendants have conceded that they will 

not be prejudiced by the granting of the motion. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint, filed August 21, 

2024, is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within five (5) days of the date of 

entry of this order; and

3. The hearing set for October 2, 2024, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The Court strongly encourages the parties to file stipulations signed by all parties who have appeared and are 

affected when requests are unopposed. L.R. 144(a).

Case 1:23-cv-01335-SAB Document 64 Filed 09/11/24 Page 3 of 3