Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00953-0/pdf.json

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

---

Page 1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RACHEL LOBATO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CNC APEX CORP. dba FOSTER’S FREEZE, 

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:16-cv-00953-LJO-EPG

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 15)

Having carefully considered the unopposed Motion of Plaintiff Rachel Lobato

(“Plaintiff”) for leave to file her First Amended Complaint, the papers submitted, and the 

pleadings in this action, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Amend the Complaint. 

(ECF No. 15)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend should be freely given 

when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “In the absence of any apparent or declared 

reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated 

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the 

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the 

leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 

Case 1:16-cv-00953-LJO-EPG Document 16 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 2
Page 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

Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 

S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).

Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint within the time set forth in the Court’s 

scheduling order. Such amendment does not alter or change any date set by the Court in such 

Order. Plaintiff has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court that the amendment is not the 

result of undue delay or bad faith, and that no prejudice will befall Defendants in permitting 

the amendment.

The motion was filed on January 13, 2017 (ECF No. 15), and Defendants did not 

oppose to the motion, and 14 days have now passed. See CAED-LR 230(c).

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint, a copy of which was 

attached as Exhibit A to her motion, no later than five (5) court days after the filing of this 

Order. Defendants shall thereafter file a responsive pleading in accordance with Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).

The motion hearing set for February 10, 2017, at 10 a.m. is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00953-LJO-EPG Document 16 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 2