Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01403/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01403-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG YATES, and individual; and

DISABILITY RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU

HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit

corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

NEW TIN’S MARKET; MEE FONG YU;

SUNG TING SUNG SUPERMARKET, INC.;

P&L INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., INC.

Defendant. /

No. C07-01403 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend. (Docket No. 13.) For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Craig Yates (“Yates”) and Disability Rights Enforcement, Education Services

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought an action against Defendants Mee Fong Yu, Sung Ting Sung

Supermarket, Inc., and P&L International Trading Co., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) under the

Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act. Defendants own and operate New

Tin’s Market. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages for Defendants’ failure to remove

architectural barriers that allegedly deny Yates, and a class of similarly situated persons with

disabilities, full and equal access to New Tin’s Market.

Case 3:07-cv-01403-MHP Document 18 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In the operative Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Yates was a patron at New Tin’s Market on

eight specific occasions and encountered the alleged architectural barriers during each visit. Since

filing the complaint, Yates has returned to New Tin’s Market six additional times and has

encountered architectural barriers to access during each visit. Plaintiffs now seek to amend the

Complaint to add these six new incidents. Defendants Sun Tin Sung Supermarket, Inc. and P&L

International Trading Co., Inc. filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. (Docket No. 17.) 

Defendant Mee Fong Yu did not file an Opposition. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend a

pleading once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served, after that the party may

amend the pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Additionally,

Rule 15(a) instructs the Court that, “leave shall be freely granted when justice so requires.” The

Supreme Court has made it clear that courts are to carefully heed this mandate. See Foman v. Davis,

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Moreover, “[t]his liberality in granting leave to amend is not dependent

on whether the amendment will add causes of action or parties.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,

833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). In determining whether to grant leave to amend, the Court

considers the following factors: (1) whether the movant unduly delayed in bringing the motion; (2)

evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant; (3) the movant’s repeated failure

to cure deficiencies by previous amendments; (4) prejudice to the opposing party; and (5) futility of

amendment. Id. Generally, the court engages in this analysis with all inferences in favor of granting

the motion. See Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). While each of

these factors is relevant to determining the propriety of leave to amend, the crucial factor is the

resulting prejudice to the opposing party. See Howey v. Radio Corp. of Am., 481 F.2d 1187, 1190

(9th Cir. 1973). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, there exists

a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC v.

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, if the party opposing the motion fails to

establish any of these factors, “the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’”

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.

Case 3:07-cv-01403-MHP Document 18 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs seek to amend the Complaint to add allegations regarding the architectural barriers

Yates encountered during six visits he made to New Tin’s Market since the filing of the Complaint. 

The interests of judicial economy are best served by granting this Motion. Plaintiffs’ amendments

will not alter the substantive issues in the case. Instead, the amendments will allow Plaintiffs’

potential causes of action to be remedied through a single proceeding. In addition, the Court notes

that none of the DCD Programs factors weigh in favor of denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend. See

DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. Furthermore, the crucial factor to be considered is the resulting

prejudice to the opposing party. See Howey, 481 F.2d at 1190. Defendants do not assert, nor does

the Court perceive, a risk of prejudice to Defendants. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s

Motion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion and VACATES the November 6,

2007 hearing in this matter. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this Order to file an

amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01403-MHP Document 18 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 3