Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00519-1/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

----oo0oo----

JAMES SANFORD,

NO. CIV. S-05-0519 WBS JFM

Plaintiff, 

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RE: MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

CAPITAL CITY RESTAURANTS, INC.

dba TGI FRIDAY’S #1725; JOHN

A. FORSTER; DANIEL S. FORSTER

and DONNA FORSTER, Trustees of

the FORSTER FAMILY TRUST;

RICHARD M. FORSTER, Trustee of

the RICHARD M. FORSTER FAMILY

TRUST

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add as

defendants (1) John Forster in his individual capacity; (2)

Richard M. Forster, Trustee of the Richard M. Forster Family

Trust; and (3) Daniel S. Forster and Donna J. Forster, Trustees

of the Forster Family Trust. Plaintiff would also dismiss John

Forster and Lisa Forster in their capacities as Trustees of the

Forster Family Trust. The Forsters’ counsel acknowledged at the

hearing that the complaint as amended would name the true owners

of the relevant property as defendants. Plaintiff ultimately

seeks injunctive relief and damages due to defendants’ alleged

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California

Case 2:05-cv-00519-WBS -JFM Document 24 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California

Health and Safety Code § 19959. This court has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.

The court issued a pretrial scheduling order on June

29, 2005. Therefore, the governing standard the court applies to

determine if plaintiff may amend his complaint is not Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), but Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975

F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992)(once district court has issued a

pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16 establishing a

timetable for pleadings, the good cause standard of Rule 16

controls). An order pursuant to Rule 16 “shall control the

subsequent course of the action unless modified by a subsequent

order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e).

The court finds good cause to permit plaintiffs to

amend their complaint to add the proper defendants. Defendants

will not be prejudiced thereby. This action was only filed in

March 2005, and discovery closes on March 31, 2006. There is

thus sufficient time for the proper defendants to prepare their

cases.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to

amend the complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

DATED: September 9, 2005

Case 2:05-cv-00519-WBS -JFM Document 24 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 2