Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00061/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00061-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

Case 3:12-cv-00061-BEN-DHB Document 55 Filed 05/24/13 Page 1 of 4
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 

BACKGROUND 

The crux of Plaintiffs complaint is that Avis violated state laws by 

discriminating between customers on the basis of sexual orient',ltion. Her claims 

arise from Avis offering discounted rates to two groups: the International Gay and 

Lesbian Travel Association and the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of 

Commerce. Plaintiff, who is not a member of or associated with either of those 

organizations, alleges that she was charged a higher rate when she rented a vehicle 

from Avis. 

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 9,2012. On January 9, 2013, she 

moved for leave to add a second plaintiff. A vis opposed the motion and 

simultaneously moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a reply in support of 

the proposed amendment. Plaintiff has not yet responded to the summary judgment 

motion.! 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Once a responsive pleading is filed, plaintiff can amend a complaint "only 

with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). "The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Id.; see 

also Morongo Band ofMission Indians v. Rose, 893 F .2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 

1990) (stating that leave to amend is to be granted with "extreme liberality"). "The 

power to grant leave to amend, however, is entrusted to the discretion of the district 

court, which determines the propriety of a motion to amend by ascertaining the 

presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 

party, and/or futility." Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, amendments seeking to add 

claims are granted more freely than amendments adding parties. Union Pacific R.R. 

Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991). 

1 The Court has ~anted three motions to continue the summary jud~ent

hearing. It is scheduled for June 17, 2013. The Court is unlikely to grant further 

contmuances. 

- 2- 12cv61 

Case 3:12-cv-00061-BEN-DHB Document 55 Filed 05/24/13 Page 2 of 4
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 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff seeks leave to add a second plaintiff solely as a safeguard agains~ a 

standing challenge. Defendant argues in its motion for summ~rY judgment that 

Plaintiff lacks Article III standing because she has suffered no injUry as a result of 

her Avis rental. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff actually paid a lower 

rate than a person using a NGLCC or IGLTA discount code. Plaintiff has not yet 

filed a brief in opposition to summary judgment. 

In requesting leave to amend, Plaintiff disputes that she lacks standing but 

candidly admits, "IfAvis is successful with this defense against Plaintiff, it may 

disqualify her has a class representative." Accordingly, she seeks to add an 

additional putative class representative. No other reason for the proposed 

amendment is asserted. Notice of Motion at 2 ("This Motion is necessary due to 

Defendant Avis Rent A Car System, LLC's ("Avis") asserted defense that Plaintiff 

lacks standing to bring this action and is not a typical class representative because it 

contends that she has not suffered an injury as a result of its violation ofthe Unruh 

Act."). 

The Court is mindful ofthe liberality ofRule 15(a), yet it does not extend to 

cases where Plaintiff's only reason for seeking amendment is to cure a standing 

defect. IfPlaintiff Evenchik is without standing, then amendment would not be 

allowed, as a plaintiff "may not create jurisdiction by amendment when none 

exists." Lans v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 2d 112, 115 (D.D.C. 1999) aff'd, 

252 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotations omitted); see also 

Almeida v. Google, Inc., No. C-08-02088 RMW, 2009 WL 3809808 at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 13,2009) ("[W]here the original named plaintiff lacks standing, a new 

plaintiffwith standing cannot step in to save the lawsuit from dismissal."); In re 

Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., No. C 07-0086 SBA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66466, 

at *29-30 (N.D. Cal. June 10,2010) (a party with no standing to maintain an action 

has no standing to amend). Plaintiff contends that the amendment should be 

- 3 - 12cv61 

Case 3:12-cv-00061-BEN-DHB Document 55 Filed 05/24/13 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:12-cv-00061-BEN-DHB Document 55 Filed 05/24/13 Page 4 of 4