Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00046/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00046-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 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 - 08cv0046

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OUTERBRIDGE ACCESS ASSOCIATION,

SUING ON BEHALF OF DIANE CROSS,

and DIANE CROSS, AN INDIVIDUAL,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08-CV-0046

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND 

vs.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. d.b.a. THE

HOME DEPOT #6679; MIRA MESA

MARKETPLACE WEST, LLC, and DOES 1

THROUGH 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Outerbridge Access Association, suing on behalf of Diane Cross, and Diane Cross,

as an individual (“Plaintiffs”), filed this action on January 8, 2008 against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

d.b.a. The Home Depot #6679 and Mira Mesa Marketplace West, LLC (“Defendants”) alleging

discriminatory practices in public accommodations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”). On September 30, 2008, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”). Defendants oppose the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate

for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court hereby GRANTS

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the FAC. 

Case 3:08-cv-00046-JM-JMA Document 45 Filed 12/05/08 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

- 2 - 08cv0046

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background 

On January 26, 2007, Plaintiff Diane Cross went to Defendants' public accommodation

facilities known as HOME DEPOT U.S.A., Inc. d.b.a. THE HOME DEPOT #6679 located at 10604

Westview Parkway, Mira Mesa, California 92126. (FAC ¶ 8). When Plaintiff patronized Defendants'

facilities, she allegedly was unable to use/ or had difficulty using the public accommodations' facilities

including but not limited to the service counters, cashier checkout aisle, and women's restroom

facilities, because they were not accessible on account of alleged violations of the American with

Disabilities Act Access Guidelines for Building and Facilities ("ADAAG"). (FAC ¶ 8). 

Plaintiff Diane Cross is a member of the Outerbridge Access Association, an organization that

advocates on behalf of its members with disabilities when their civil rights and liberties have been

violated. (FAC ¶ 7). Plaintiff has physical impairments, and due to these physical impairments, she

has learned to successfully operate a wheelchair. (FAC ¶ 7).

B. Procedural Background

On January 8, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Home Depot U.S.A.,

Inc. and Mira Mesa Market Place West, Inc. alleging discriminatory practices in public

accommodations, claims under Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, failure to make alterations

as well as claims under California Accessability Laws. On February 11, 2008, Defendant Home Depot

filed an answer to Plaintiffs' complaint. On February 12, 2008, Defendant Mira Mesa Marketplace

West filed a motion to dismiss the state law claims, to which Defendant Home Depot filed a joinder.

On March 5, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint to omit the state law claims and

the class action allegations. On March 26, 2008, the court granted the motion to amend, and Plaintiffs

filed their FAC on March 28, 2008. Plaintiff Diane Cross, as an individual, also filed an action in state

court alleging the state law claims on March 28, 2008, and subsequently, on May 29, 2008, Mira Mesa

filed a cross-complaint in the state action seeking indemnity from Home Depot.

On September 30, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend the FAC. Plaintiffs request

leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) outlining additional architectural barriers

located on the property and alleging an additional claim against the Defendants. Defendants oppose

Case 3:08-cv-00046-JM-JMA Document 45 Filed 12/05/08 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

- 3 - 08cv0046

the motion. 

C. Legal Standard

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after a responsive pleading

has been served, a party may amend its complaint only with leave of court or the opposing party’s

written consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The court should grant leave to amend freely “when justice so

requires.” Id. Granting leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of the district court. Pisciotta v.

Teledyne Industries, Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Although the rule should be interpreted with extreme liberality, leave to amend is not to be

granted automatically. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Five factors

are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue

delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has

previously amended the complaint. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004).

Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor to consider. Jackson, 902 F.2d at 1387.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move for leave to amend to add additional architectural barriers allegations.

Plaintiffs allege that since the building was designed and constructed later than thirty months after July

26, 1990, Plaintiffs desire to allege that the “new construction” standard applies to the property. 

Defendants oppose the motion to amend on the ground that the amendment is prejudicial and

made in bad faith. Defendants allege that in reliance on Plaintiffs’ representations throughout the

litigation, they undertook a joint defense of the action. As a result, counsel for Home Depot agreed

to assume Mira Mesa’s defense, and filed a substitution of attorney. Subsequently, Mira Mesa

dismissed its cross-complaint against Home Depot. 

Plaintiffs respond that their motion to amend is timely brought pursuant to the Case

Management Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-trial Proceedings, dated September 17, 2008,

and there was no delay on the part of the Plaintiffs if filing this motion. 

Granting Plaintiffs leave to amend will not result in undue delay or great prejudice to

Defendants. Since discovery was stayed until August 27, 2008, and the parties only recently began

discovery in the case, it was reasonable for the Plaintiffs to discover new violations of the ADA and

Case 3:08-cv-00046-JM-JMA Document 45 Filed 12/05/08 Page 3 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

- 4 - 08cv0046

to allege them in an amended complaint. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiffs did not allege the

additional ADA violations in the common areas of the shopping center, Mira Mesa, as the landlord

of Home Depot, would still be liable for the ADA violations inside the store. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 12182(a), ADA’s prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations applies to “any person

who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

While Defendants will suffer some inconvenience as a result of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, it was

the Defendants’ decision to engage in a joint defense, despite their joint liability under the statutory

language. Given the liberal standard governing granting leave to amend, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend

first amended complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are granted 20 days from the date of entry of this order to file the SAC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00046-JM-JMA Document 45 Filed 12/05/08 Page 4 of 4