Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00504/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00504-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EARL MCLAUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv504-WQH-NLS

Order

vs.

EMBASSY SUITES

MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware

Limited Liability Company;

FELCOR/JPM HOTELS, LLC, a

Delaware Limited Liability Company;

and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended

Complaint, filed by Defendants Embassy Suites Management, LLC (“Embassy Suites”)

and Felcor/JPM Hotels, LLC (“Felcor/JPM”) (ECF No. 17), and the Motion for Leave

to File Second Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff Earl McLaughlin (ECF No. 19).

I. Background

On March 6, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against

Felcor/JPM and Hilton Worldwide, Inc. (“Hilton”). (ECF No. 1). The Complaint

alleged that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42

U.S.C. § 12101, and other state laws related to a hotel reservation Plaintiff made on a

website reservation system owned and operated by Hilton and Felcor/JPM. 

On April 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is the

operative pleading. (ECF No. 8). In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again

- 1 - 14cv504-WQH-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-00504-WQH-NLS Document 23 Filed 08/27/14 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

named Felcor/JPM as a Defendant, and substituted Embassy Suites as a Defendant in

place of Hilton. Otherwise, the allegations of the First Amended Complaint are the

same as those of the Complaint.

On June 12, 2014, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 17). 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot for multiple reasons, including

that as of March 20, 2014, neither Defendant has an ownership or operational interest

in the hotel at issue, and the hotel reservation system at issue is operated by Hilton,

Embassy Suites’ parent corporation.

On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint, accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 19). 

The proposed second amended complaint adds Hilton as a defendant. Plaintiff states

that he seeks leave to add Hilton based upon Defendants’ statement in the Motion to

Dismiss that Hilton operates the hotel reservation system at issue.

On July 28, 2014, Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 21). Defendant contends that the motion

should be denied because granting leave to amend would be futile.

II. Discussion

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 determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation 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

- 2 - 14cv504-WQH-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-00504-WQH-NLS Document 23 Filed 08/27/14 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

exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

After review of the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, the

proposed second amended complaint and the filings of the parties, the Court concludes

that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong showing of the Foman factors to

overcome the presumption under 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 second amended complaint until after the

amended pleading is filed. See Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D.

Cal. 2003) (“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of challenges to the merits of

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

pleading is filed.”). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, addressing the First Amended

Complaint, will become moot once Plaintiff files the second amended complaint. See

London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

III. Conclusion

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

Complaint is GRANTED. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff shall file the proposed second

amended complaint attached to the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint within ten days of the date this Order is filed. The Motion to Dismiss the

First Amended Complaint is DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 17).

DATED: August 27, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv504-WQH-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-00504-WQH-NLS Document 23 Filed 08/27/14 Page 3 of 3