Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01186/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01186-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

15-cv-1186-CAB (MDD)

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

BRENDA MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREYHOUND BUS LINES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-1186-CAB (MDD)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 80]

On June 5, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a filing that was in essence two separate 

motions: (1) a request for reconsideration and (2) a request for leave to amend. [Doc. No. 

80]. On June 8, 2018, the Court denied the request for reconsideration and set a briefing 

scheduling on the motion for leave to amend. [Doc. No. 81.] The motion for leave to 

amend has been fully briefed and the Court finds it suitable for determination on the papers 

submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For 

the following reasons, the motion to amend is denied.

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint to add a claim for violation of California 

Civil Code section 51(f) ("UNRUH violation") and seeks monetary damages, costs and 

fees pursuant to that claim, arising out of the same facts and events alleged to support the 

pending Complaint for violations of Title III of the ADA. [Doc. No. 80 at 3-15.] Defendant 

Case 3:15-cv-01186-CAB-LL Document 93 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

15-cv-1186-CAB (MDD)

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

oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend arguing that amendment would be futile and that 

allowing it would cause them undue prejudice. [Doc. No. 86.]

Rule 15 (a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure states that, after the initial period 

for amendments as of right, pleadings may only be amended by leave of court, which “[t]he 

court shall freely give when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts 

commonly use four factors to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad 

faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment. Ditto v. 

McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2007); Loehr v. Ventura Cnty. Cmty. Coll. 

Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 

(9th Cir. 1973). “When weighing these factors . . . all inferences should be made in favor 

of granting the motion to amend.” Hofstetter v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 2d 

1116, 1122 (N.D. Cal 2010) (citing Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th 

Cir. 1999)).

The Ninth Circuit has held that “it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing 

party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “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.” Id. Moreover, “once the defendant is in court on a claim arising out of a particular 

transaction or set of facts, he is not prejudiced if another claim, arising out of the same 

facts, is added.” Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1315 (9th Cir. 1988). While futile 

amendments should not be permitted, an amendment “is futile only if no set of facts can be 

proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient 

claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988); DCD 

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). 

Here, the Court is unwilling to conclude that Plaintiff is seeking amendment in bad 

fad faith. Plaintiff filed the motion to amend immediately after her recent appeal to the 

Ninth Circuit was denied, and only six calendar months after the second amended 

complaint was filed which weighs in favor of granting leave to amend. Similarly, 

Case 3:15-cv-01186-CAB-LL Document 93 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

15-cv-1186-CAB (MDD)

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

considering the early stages of this litigation the Court sees no reason to expect that the 

amendment will unduly delay litigation. See AmericSourceBergen Corp v. Dialysist W., 

Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] district court need not grant leave to amend 

where the amendment (1) prejudices the other party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces 

an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.”). Neither does the Court find that Defendant 

would be unduly prejudiced if Plaintiff was allowed to amend. 

However, the Court agrees with Defendant that allowing Plaintiff to amend to add 

an UNRUH claim would be futile because the jurisdiction of the Act is expressly limited 

to violations taking place in California, therefore, the “Act does not apply to this action 

because the alleged discrimination occurred outside of California (in Denver, Colorado) 

and it is therefore outside of the extraterritorial reach of the statute.” [Doc. No. 83 at 9-

10.] 

Specifically, the statute provides:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no 

matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, 

medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full 

and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all 

business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

CAL. CIV. CODE § 51(b). 

Thus, through its own language UNRUH has limited geographical scope and only 

applies to discrimination that takes place within California. See Warner v. Tinder Inc., 105 

F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1099 (C.D. Cal. Jul7 31, 2015) (concluding the terms of the statute 

expressly limit it to discrimination that takes place within California’s borders); Tat 

Tohumculuk, A.D. v. H.J. Heinz Co., No. CIV 13-0773 WBS KJN, 2013 WL 6070483, *7 

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (“[p]laintiff has not presented any case law, nor is the court 

aware of any, applying section 51 to alleged discrimination suffered by parties outside 

California. The Unruh Act, therefore, does not apply.”); Keum v. Virgin Am. Inc., 781 F. 

Supp. 2d 944, 955 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011) (“[t]he Unruh Act only applies to 

discrimination that takes place within California’s jurisdiction); Sousanis. v. Nw. Airlines, 

Case 3:15-cv-01186-CAB-LL Document 93 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

15-cv-1186-CAB (MDD)

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

Inc., No. C-99-2994 MHP, 2000 WL 34015861, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2000) (“the Unruh 

Act contains language expressly limiting its reach to ‘all persons within the jurisdiction of 

this state.’”); Loving v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., No. CV 08-2898 JFW (AJWx), 2009 

WL 7236419, *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2009) (“[p]laintiffs’ state law claims do not have 

extraterritorial reach. It is well-settled that the Unruh Act applies only within California.”). 

Simply put, California does not “acquire power or supervision over the internal affairs of 

another State merely because the welfare and health of its own citizens may be affected 

when they travel to that State.” Bigleow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 825 (1975). 

Because section 51 cannot apply extraterritorially to the events that allegedly 

occurred in Denver, Colorado, allowing Plaintiff to amend to add an UNRUH claim would 

be futile. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. No. 80] for leave to 

file a third amended complaint to assert an UNRUH claim. 

A copy of this order shall be served on Plaintiff via certified mail.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2018

Case 3:15-cv-01186-CAB-LL Document 93 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4