Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02010/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02010-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions

---

1

17cv2010-WQH-BGS

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

MICHAEL PALLAMARY, 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELITE SHOW SERVICES, INC., 

a California corporation; CITY OF 

SAN DIEGO, a municipal 

corporation; OFFICER 

ZACHARY DIGIOIA, an 

individual; SERGEANT 

JENNIFER ATWOOD, an 

individual; DETECTIVE JULIE 

ADAMS, an individual; 

QUALCOMM STADIUM 

MEDICAL STAFF 1-3, 

individuals; the CHARGERS 

FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, a 

California limited liability 

company; BARBARA JOHNSON, 

an individual; DANIEL 

JOHNSON, an individual; and 

DOES 1 through 30, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv2010-WQH-BGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

Case 3:17-cv-02010-WQH-BGS Document 77 Filed 09/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv2010-WQH-BGS

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

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 

complaint filed by Plaintiff Michal Pallamary (ECF No. 71).

I. BACKGROUND

On December 22, 2017, Pallamary filed a first amended complaint against 

Defendants Elite, the City of San Diego, Officer Zachary Digioia, Sergeant Jennifer 

Atwood, Detective Julie Adams, the Chargers Football Company, LLC, Barbara Johnson, 

Daniel Johnson, Elite Show Services, Inc., Qualcomm Medical Staff 1–3,

1

and Doe 

defendants. (ECF No. 32). Pallamary brought the following causes of action against all 

Defendants: (1) violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

12182 (ADA); (2) denial of civil rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 

§51 et seq. (Unruh Act); (3) violation of the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA), Cal. 

Civ. Code §§ 54, 54.3; (4) negligence; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

Pallamary brought claims of (6) negligent hiring, against the City of San Diego, Elite, the 

Chargers, and Does; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Digioia, 

Adams, Atwood, Barbara Johnson, Daniel Johnson, and Does. Pallamary brought claims 

of (8) false imprisonment, (9) false arrest, and (10) assault against Elite, Digioia, Adams, 

Atwood, Elite, Barbara Johnson, Daniel Johnson, and Does; and (11) battery, against 

Digioia, Adams, and Atwood. 

On June 19, 2018, the Court dismissed the Unruh Act cause of action to the extent 

it is premised on age discrimination, and the false arrest, false imprisonment, and negligent 

infliction of emotional distress causes of action as to Barbara Johnson, Daniel Johnson, and 

Elite; the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action as to Daniel Johnson; 

the negligent hiring cause of action as to Elite; the negligence, negligent infliction of 

emotional distress, and Unruh Act causes of action as to Digioia, Atwood, Adams, and the 

City of San Diego to the extent they were premised on age discrimination; the negligence, 

 

1 Defendant Qualcomm Medical Staff 1-3 has not yet appeared in this action and Plaintiff has not filed 

any proof of service as to this Defendant. 

Case 3:17-cv-02010-WQH-BGS Document 77 Filed 09/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv2010-WQH-BGS

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

negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring causes of action as to the 

City of San Diego; the battery cause of action as to Defendants Digioia, Adams, and 

Atwood; the claims for punitive damages against the City of San Diego; and the claims 

against the Chargers. (ECF No. 63). 

The order stated in part: “Any request for leave to file an amended complaint must 

be made by filing a motion on the docket pursuant to the Local Rules and Judge Hayes’ 

Chamber Rules.” (ECF No. 63 at 28). On August 1, 2018, Pallamary filed a Motion for 

Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 71). On August 27, 2018, the 

Chargers filed a Response in Opposition. (ECF No. 74). On August 29, 2018, Elite, 

Barbara Johnson, and Daniel Johnson filed a Notice of Non Opposition. (ECF No. 75). 

On August 31, 2018, Pallamary filed a Reply. (ECF No. 76).

II. DISCUSSION

Pallamary contends that the motion for leave to amend is brought in good faith, 

timely, and does not unfairly prejudice Defendants. (ECF No. 71-1, at 19–20). Pallamary 

contends that the amended complaint “revises the allegations to conform to the current 

knowledge of facts discovered so far in this case.” Id. at 20. Pallamary contends that the 

Chargers “entered into a contract with [Elite], to provide ‘nonpolice officer crowd control 

and security enforcement’ for the football games,” and that “[p]ursuant to this contract,” 

Elite, Barbara Johnson, and Daniel Johnson “performed duties delegated to them” by the 

Chargers. Id. at 17. Pallamary further contends that the Chargers’ predecessor in interest 

“entered into a contract with” the City of San Diego, “which allowed [the Chargers] to 

utilize San Diego police officers.” Id. 

The Chargers contend that leave to amend should be denied because the proposed 

amendments are futile, unduly delayed and unfairly prejudicial to the Chargers, and 

brought in bad faith. (ECF No. 74, at 7, 18–19). The Chargers contend that Pallamary 

brings new and preexisting claims against the Chargers without supporting factual 

allegations and “premised on the same ‘facts’ known to Plaintiff when he filed his lawsuit 

a year ago.” Id. at 6. The Chargers contend that the proposed amendments will “needlessly 

Case 3:17-cv-02010-WQH-BGS Document 77 Filed 09/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv2010-WQH-BGS

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

increase litigation costs, expand the scope of discovery and, given the delays, harm the 

Chargers’ ability to conduct discovery.” Id. at 22.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given 

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme 

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court offered several factors for 

district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as 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, futility of 

amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely 

given.” 

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th 

Cir. 2004). “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others 

have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest 

weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted). “The party opposing 

amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 

F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). “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, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

The Court concludes that Defendant has not made a sufficiently strong showing of 

the Foman factors to overcome the presumption of Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to 

amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The Court will defer consideration of 

any challenge to the merits of the proposed amended complaint until after the amended 

pleading is filed. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. C-04-4708, 2006 

WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006) (“In view of Rule 15(a)’s permissive 

standard, courts ordinarily defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed 

Case 3:17-cv-02010-WQH-BGS Document 77 Filed 09/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv2010-WQH-BGS

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

amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is 

filed.”).

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 71) is granted. No later than seven (7) days from the date this order 

is issued, Plaintiff may file the proposed second amended complaint attached to the motion. 

Dated: September 25, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02010-WQH-BGS Document 77 Filed 09/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5