Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00360/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00360-5/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ODIS MARTIN and LORETHA

MARTIN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WHGCA LLC; and HILTON 

WORLDWIDE, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-00360-GEB-AC

ORDER MODIFYING DEADLINE TO FILE 

A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND*

On September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Application 

for an Order Shortening Time (“OST”), (ECF No. 26), for hearing 

on Plaintiffs’ motion in which they seek to extend the deadline 

to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a), (ECF No. 24).

The following procedural history and factual background 

is relevant to Plaintiff’s Application for an OST and underlying

motion. Plaintiffs stated in the July 7, 2014 Joint Status Report 

(“JSR”) that they “anticipate[d] requesting leave to amend the 

Complaint . . . to list every architectural barrier to access 

that plaintiff[s] seek[] to remediate, and which [they] may

encounter during future visits” after “the Parties have completed 

a [Rule] 34 inspection of the subject property,” which was 

 

* This matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. 

R. 230(g).

Case 2:14-cv-00360-TLN-AC Document 27 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 5
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

scheduled to occur on July 22, 2014. (JSR 2:7-14, 3:15-16; ECF 

No. 15.) Accordingly, the Status Order filed July 14, 2014, gave 

Plaintiffs “until August 25, 2014, to file a motion in which 

leave is sought under [Rule] 15(a) to file the referenced 

amendment, after which time no further service, joinder of 

parties, or amendments to the pleadings is permitted, except with 

leave of Court for good cause shown.” (Status Order 2:22-27, ECF 

No. 16.) This deadline was subsequently extended to October 10, 

2014, by stipulation and order due to delays in completing the 

Rule 34 inspection. (Stipulation and Order 3:9-13, ECF No. 18.) 

A Rule 34 inspection occurred on August 19, 2014, at 

which time Plaintiffs’ accessibility expert was permitted to 

inspect only the areas that Plaintiffs personally encountered

during a past visit to the property. However, Plaintiffs sought

to inspect other areas “open to the public and Hotel patrons” to 

identify any accessibility barriers Plaintiffs could encounter if 

they return to the property. (Decl. of Catherine Cabalo in Supp. 

of Mot. to Extend Deadline (“Cabalo Dec.”) && 2-3, ECF No. 25.)

Plaintiffs contend they “are . . . entitled to inspect 

the other areas of the hotel that they may encounter in the 

future, pursuant to Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th 

Cir. 2008) and Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (US) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 

(9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).” (Joint Statement re Disc. 

Disagreement 5, ECF No. 19.) Defendants counter:

Plaintiffs have a right to inspect the entire 

property if they have “encountered or become 

aware of alleged ADA violations that deter 

[their] patronage of or otherwise interfere 

with [their] access to a place of public 

accommodation.” [Chapman,] 631 F.3d at 953. 

The Court refers to the required showing as 

Case 2:14-cv-00360-TLN-AC Document 27 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 5
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

suffering “an injury in fact.” Thus, 

Plaintiffs have no right to any further 

inspections until they prove that they 

suffered an injury-in-fact. To date, 

Plaintiffs have not shown any such 

injury. . . .

Plaintiffs, while they assert there are 

clear access violations, refuse to provide 

the information necessary for Defendants to 

test their assertions. Plaintiffs have no 

right to an additional inspection until they 

have shown that they actually encountered 

real barriers at the Property which caused an 

injury in fact. Because Plaintiffs refuse to 

back up their assertions from the initial 

limited inspection, Plaintiffs have no right 

to a second inspection.

(Id. at 5-6.) 

This discovery dispute is the subject of a pending 

motion to compel, which is scheduled for hearing before 

Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on November 5, 2014. (See Mot. to 

Compel Rule 34 Site Inspection, ECF No. 22.)

Plaintiffs seek to extend the October 10, 2014 deadline 

to file a motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a) in light of 

this discovery dispute. Plaintiffs argue: 

The earliest that Plaintiffs could 

schedule a hearing with Magistrate Judge 

Claire on their motion to compel was November 

5, 2014. Judge Claire has not ruled on 

Plaintiffs’ motion. Until she does, 

Plaintiffs cannot effectively amend their 

complaint pursuant to Oliver v. Ralphs 

Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 

2011) to provide defendants with notice of 

all the barriers to disabled access in the 

Hotel that Plaintiffs may encounter in the 

future. In the event that Judge Claire orders 

Defendants to allow Plaintiffs to complete 

the inspection, the parties and their access 

consultants will need to schedule the 

continued inspection, and Plaintiffs will 

need some time to allow their access 

consultant to report any access barriers 

identified during the continued inspection.

Case 2:14-cv-00360-TLN-AC Document 27 Filed 10/06/14 Page 3 of 5
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

4

. . . . 

. . . . Therefore, Plaintiffs request that 

the Court continue the deadline for 

Plaintiffs to request leave to amend their 

complaint . . . until [December 31, 2014].

(Pls.’ Mot to Extend Deadline 4:16-5:1, 5:19-21; see also

Proposed Order Granting Mot. to Extend Deadline, ECF No. 24-1.) 

Plaintiffs’ further request their motion to extend the 

referenced deadline be heard on shortened time, arguing: 

Plaintiffs will suffer substantial harm 

and prejudice if the Court is unable to hear 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend . . . until 

after the [relevant] deadline . . . has 

passed. Plaintiffs will not be able to fully 

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Oliver

until after the discovery dispute regarding 

the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 34 site inspection 

currently before Judge Claire has been fully 

resolved.

(Pls.’ Appl. for OST 3:4-9.)

The pending discovery dispute affects the scope of 

amendments Plaintiffs seek to make to their Complaint, and that 

dispute is not scheduled for hearing until November 5, 2015.

Further, Plaintiffs have shown their diligence in seeking to 

resolve the discovery dispute. Therefore, good cause exists to 

modify the existing deadline by which Plaintiffs may file a 

motion under Rule 15(a) seeking leave to file an amendment 

pursuant to Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 

2011). Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 

(“[The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] should be construed and 

administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination of every action and proceeding.”). 

For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs have until December 

31, 2014, to file a motion in which leave is sought under Rule 

Case 2:14-cv-00360-TLN-AC Document 27 Filed 10/06/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

15(a) to file an amendment pursuant to Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery 

Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011), after which time no further 

service, joinder of parties, or amendments to the pleadings is 

permitted, except with leave of the Court for good cause shown.

Plaintiffs also request, in their Motion to Extend 

Deadline that the Court modify the July 14, 2014 Status Order to 

permit them until December 31, 2014, to seek leave under Rule 

15(a) to “name any additional parties.” In support of this 

request, Plaintiffs contend: 

Defendants’ [Rule] 26 Initial Disclosures 

included booking documentation from the 

Hotel. This documentation uses an 

abbreviation system that suggests the room 

was booked by Expedia. Plaintiffs are in the 

process of determining whether Expedia should 

be named as a defendant in this case and will 

make that decision at the time they request 

leave to amend the Complaint to include 

Oliver amendments. 

(Pls.’ Mot. to Extend Deadline 5:6-12 (citations omitted).) 

The July 14, 2014, Status Order dismissed all doe 

defendants and prescribed: “no further . . . joinder of parties 

is permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause shown.” 

(Status Order 1:21-26, 2:11-28.) Plaintiffs do not address Rule 

16(b)(4)’s good cause standard in connection with their possible

desire to add Expedia as a Defendant. Therefore, this portion of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Deadline is denied.

Dated: October 3, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-00360-TLN-AC Document 27 Filed 10/06/14 Page 5 of 5