Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00826/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00826-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH LEE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv826-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

DEL MAR THOROUGHBRED CLUB, a

California Corporation,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 35).

BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant

in this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint seeks damages “for taking retaliatory action against

Plaintiff with regards to Plaintiff’s filing of a claim for damages under the Americans with

Disabilities Act.” Id. at 1.

On August 2, 2012, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by Plaintiff’s former

counsel. (ECF No. 13). On October 31, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to allow

Plaintiff to proceed pro se. (ECF No. 17).

On December 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a scheduling order which stated that

any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or before January 7, 2013. (ECF No. 25 at

1).

On December 26, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for substitution of counsel,

approving new counsel to proceed as Plaintiff’s counsel in this case. (ECF No. 26).

On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint without seeking leave of

Court. (ECF No. 32).

- 1 - 12cv826-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:12-cv-00826-WQH-BLM Document 54 Filed 04/23/13 Page 1 of 3
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

On January 17, 2013, the Court ordered the First Amended Complaint to be stricken for

failure to seek leave of Court as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). (ECF No.

33). The Court stated that “[a]ny motion for leave to file a first amended complaint shall be filed

no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order.” Id. at 2.

On January 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend Complaint with a proposed first

amended complaint attached. (ECF No. 35). The proposed first amended complaint adds new

defendants (the State of California, the “22d Agricultural District,” and Does 1 through 50), and

contains four separate causes of action alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

retaliation for filing an Americans with Disabilities Act claim, violation of the Unruh Civil

Rights Act, and violation of the California Disabled Persons Act. (ECF No. 35-3 at 3). Plaintiff

contends that his delay in seeking amendment is attributable to the withdrawal of his prior

counsel and his difficulty in obtaining new counsel. Plaintiff contends that the newly added

parties are indispensable parties to this litigation.

On February 15, 2013, Defendant filed a response in opposition to the Motion to Amend

Complaint. (ECF No. 37). Defendant contends that the motion was made after the January 7,

2013 deadline for amending the pleadings in the scheduling order and thus the liberal policy

regarding amendment of pleadings no longer applies. Defendant contends that if the amendment

is granted, Defendant will be prejudiced by delaying resolution of the case and requiring

Defendant “to respond and continue to defend unmeritorious causes of action.” Id. at 7.

DISCUSSION

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be freely

given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)

(quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court considers whether

there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing party,” or “futility of

amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co.,

358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing the Forman factors). “Not all of the [Foman] factors

merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the

- 2 - 12cv826-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:12-cv-00826-WQH-BLM Document 54 Filed 04/23/13 Page 2 of 3
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

greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citation omitted). “The party opposing

amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d

183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). “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.” 

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

Defendant contends that consideration of the Motion to Amend Complaint should be

governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which provides that “[a] schedule may be

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In the

Court’s January 17, 2013 Order striking the First Amended Complaint, the Court modified the

scheduling order by permitting Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to file a first amended

complaint no later than ten days from the date of the Order. (ECF No. 33). The Court finds that

good cause existed for this modification because Plaintiff had made a good faith attempt to

comply with the scheduling order by filing the First Amended Complaint on January 7, 2013. 

The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 16(b)(4) have been satisfied.

In considering the Foman factors pursuant to Rule 15(a), the Court finds that leave to

amend should be granted. Any minor delay or prejudice to Defendant is not sufficient to

overcome the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. To the extent Defendant challenges the merits of the proposed first

amended complaint, the Court defers consideration of the merits until after Plaintiff files the

amended pleading. See Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

(“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended

pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. (ECF

No. 35). No later than ten (10) days from the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff may file the

proposed first amended complaint which is attached to the Motion to Amend Complaint.

DATED: April 23, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv826-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:12-cv-00826-WQH-BLM Document 54 Filed 04/23/13 Page 3 of 3