Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00115/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00115-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
NYACO, Inc.
Defendant
NYACO, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NYACO, LLC; NYACO, INC., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on the motion by plaintiff Scott Johnson for leave to 

file a first amended complaint. Mot., ECF No. 16. Defendants have opposed the motion and 

requested judicial notice. ECF Nos. 22, 23. This matter is decided on the papers, and for the 

following reasons the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion and DENIES defendants’ request for 

judicial notice. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed January 16, 2014, alleges violations of the 

(1) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; (2) Unruh Civil 

Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53; (3) California Disabled Persons Act, id. §§ 54-54.8; and 

(4) a claim for negligence. Compl., ECF No. 1. at 4–7. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, actual 

and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Id. at 7–8. Defendants filed their 

answer on April 11, 2014. ECF No. 4. The court held a scheduling conference on June 12, 2014, 

Case 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 8
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

with both parties appearing (ECF No. 10) and issued a scheduling order on June 27, 2014 (ECF 

No. 12). The scheduling order states that no amendment to the pleadings will be permitted 

without leave of court. ECF No. 12 at 2. In compliance with that order, plaintiff filed the instant 

motion, seeking to add a claim for retaliation under the ADA. ECF No. 16. Defendants oppose 

(ECF No. 23) and plaintiff has replied (ECF No. 28). 

 On March 27, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and request 

for sanctions. ECF No. 33. Because the court now grants plaintiff leave to amend the operative 

complaint, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot, without prejudice. 

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a level C-5 quadriplegic with significant manual dexterity impairments. 

Compl. ¶ 1. He uses a wheelchair and a specially equipped van for transportation. Id. 

Defendants own the Donner Summit Beacon1 gas station and store, located on Donner Pass Road 

in Soda Springs, California. Id. ¶ 2. 

 Plaintiff has alleged defendants’ facilities, including its parking spaces and 

bathroom, do not comply with federal and state disability laws. See id. ¶¶ 9–16. Plaintiff has 

patronized defendants’ store on nine occasions in the last few years. Id. ¶ 15. He has 

“experienced difficulty and discomfort. These violations denied the plaintiff full and equal access 

to facilities, privileges and accommodations offered by the defendants.” Id. ¶ 16. 

 On January 22, 2015, approximately one year after filing the original complaint, 

plaintiff again went to defendants’ store and was refused service. Mot. at 4. “In fact, he was 

shown [an] 8.5 x 11 glossy photo mounted on the wall of [himself] and informed that this was 

posted so that employees would know what he looked like to ensure that he was refused service.” 

Id. He alleges defendant’s attorney Erica Rosasco, later confirmed in writing that this incident 

was “repercussions of filing suit” and that if plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit, “he might be 

///// 

 

1

 This name is taken from the complaint, but defendants refer to the property as “Sugar 

Bowl Fuel” in their opposition. ECF No. 22 at 2. According to the map provided as an exhibit to 

plaintiff’s deposition (ECF No. 22-2 at 36), these gas stations have the same address and so the 

court assumes they are the same. 

Case 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 8
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

permitted back into the property.” Proposed FAC ¶ 19, ECF No. 17. As a result of this recent 

incident, plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to include ADA retaliation claims. Id. 

III. JUDICIAL NOTICE 

 Defendant asks the court to take judicial notice of (1) a Minute Order in Byron 

Chapman v. Chevron Stations, Inc. Case No. 1:09-cv-1324, Oct. 5, 2011, and (2) a list of cases 

filed in the Eastern District of California by plaintiff. ECF No. 23. Relevance is a threshold 

consideration in a court’s determination of whether to take judicial notice under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 201. See Silvester v. Harris, No. 1:11-CV-2137, 2014 WL 4209563 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 

2014) (declining judicial notice where there “was an inadequate demonstration of how such 

evidence was intended to be used and/or how the evidence is relevant”; citing Hargis v. Access 

Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783, 792–93 (8th Cir. 2012) for proposition that courts need not 

take judicial notice of irrelevant evidence). 

 Both documents covered by defendants’ request are irrelevant to the matter before 

the court. The Minute Order, issued by another judge of this court in an unrelated case, prohibits 

any unnoticed site inspections of defendant’s facilities by a different plaintiff. No such Minute 

Order was issued in this case, and the unrelated case has no bearing on plaintiff’s motion. 

 The second document, a PACER list of cases in this district brought by plaintiff, is 

also irrelevant. Although plaintiff is a frequent litigant, his other cases also have no bearing on 

whether he is entitled to amend his complaint in this case. The court DENIES the request for 

judicial notice. 

IV. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Rule 16 applies because plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint after the court has 

issued its scheduling order specifying amendments to the schedule and pleadings require a 

showing of good cause. Rule 16(b)(4) states that a “schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge's consent.” This good cause evaluation “is not coextensive with an 

inquiry into the propriety of the amendment under . . . Rule 15.” Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Distinct from Rule 15(a)’s liberal 

amendment policy, Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard focuses primarily on the diligence of the 

Case 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 8
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

moving party, id., and that party's reasons for seeking modification. C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. 

Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011). 

 If good cause exists, the party next must satisfy Rule 15(a). Cf. Johnson, 975 F.2d 

at 608. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states “[t]he court should freely give leave [to 

amend its pleading] when justice so requires” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15’s policy 

of favoring amendments.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 

1989). “In exercising its discretion [regarding granting or denying leave to amend] ‘a court must 

be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15—to facilitate decision on the merits rather than 

on the pleadings or technicalities.’” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). However, “the 

liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several limitations. Leave need not be granted 

where the amendment of the complaint would cause the opposing party (1) undue prejudice, (2) is 

sought in bad faith, (3) constitutes an exercise in futility, or (4) creates undue delay.” Ascon 

Props., 866 F.2d at 1160 (internal citations omitted). The consideration of prejudice to the 

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

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 

V. DISCUSSION 

A. Rule 16 

 Although plaintiff does not address Rule 16 in his motion, the court must 

nonetheless first determine whether plaintiff meets Rule 16’s good cause requirement. See 

Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 461 (D. Ariz. 2012) (“Only if plaintiff 

meets [the Rule 16 requirements], does Rule 15(a) become relevant.”). Rule 16 looks to 

plaintiff’s reasons for amendment and whether he exercised diligence in seeking amendment. As 

noted, plaintiff seeks to add an additional claim for retaliation under the ADA. Plaintiff could not 

have included a retaliation claim in his initial complaint under the new facts he now provides, 

because the alleged retaliatory incident happened only recently. Proposed First Amended 

Complaint (FAC) ¶ 19, Ex. 1, ECF No. 17. Plaintiff sought leave promptly after the incident. 

Discovery remains open and the dispositive motion cutoff is not until May 22, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 8
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 

5

Accordingly, plaintiff meets Rule 16’s good cause and diligence requirements. See AZ Holding, 

L.L.C. v. Frederick, No. CV-08-0276, 2009 WL 3063314, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 22, 2009) (finding 

plaintiff reasonably diligent when seeking leave one month after incident, while discovery was 

still open). 

B. Rule 15 

a. Undue Prejudice 

 “Bald assertions of prejudice cannot overcome the strong policy reflected in Rule 

15(a) to ‘facilitate a proper disposition on the merits.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., 

Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 959 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Here, 

defendants argue granting plaintiff’s request is unduly prejudicial “because it is designed to 

circumvent defendants’ anticipated motion for summary judgment and all discovery must be 

completed by April 9, 2015.” Opp’n at 11. Regarding discovery, defendants do not dispute 

plaintiff’s factual allegations. Although some additional discovery may be warranted, it can be 

completed in the additional time the court will allow. Defendants will have to respond to one 

new claim, but it is related to plaintiff’s original claims. Though defendants’ pending motion for 

summary judgment will be denied, they chose to file that motion while this motion already was 

pending; the motion will be denied without prejudice. No undue prejudice exists barring allowing 

amendment. 

b. Bad Faith 

 Bad faith exists where the proposed amendment “will not save the complaint or the 

plaintiff merely is seeking to prolong the litigation by adding new but baseless legal theories.” 

Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 881 (9th Cir. 1999). A showing of bad faith must 

be supported by evidence in the record “which would indicate a wrongful motive,” such as an 

effort to destroy diversity of the parties or a “last-ditch” attempt to save a case from dismissal 

after a granting of a dispositive motion. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Trans Video Elec. Ltd. v. Sony Elec., Inc., 278 F.R.D. 505, 510 (N.D. Cal. 2011). 

Defendants argue plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is made in bad faith because “it is 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 8
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 

6

premised upon on his violation of [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] discovery procedures and 

plaintiff’s use of tactics designed to harass defendants into a quick settlement.” Opp’n at 2. 

 Rule 34 of the federal discovery rules “permit[s] entry onto designated land or 

other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may 

inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). The 

rules require parties to give notice and provide the opposing party with an opportunity to object. 

Id. at (b)(1), (b)(2). There is no evidence here that plaintiff went to the gas station to “inspect, 

measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample” the defendants’ property, as those words in the rule 

are intended to be read. “The word ‘inspection’ has a broader meaning than just looking. The 

dictionary [ ] defines ‘inspect’ as ‘to examine carefully or critically, investigate and test officially 

. . . .” Martin v. Reynolds Metals Corp., 297 F.2d 49, 57 (9th Cir. 1961) (considering word which 

also appeared in then-current version of Rule 34). The gas station here is a public establishment. 

Plaintiff stated in his original complaint he had visited several times before, and states in his 

deposition he had specific plans to visit again. Compl. ¶ 15; Johnson Depo. at 47, ECF No. 22-2. 

Defendants do not claim plaintiff brought any inspection materials or tools with him, or that his 

attorney accompanied him. In sum, Rule 34 requests are required “in circumstances plainly 

distinguished from the factual scenario present here.” Rodriguez v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, No. 1:08-

CV-00856, 2010 WL 3733843, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2010). Specifically, “they are not 

required on private property or property not open to the public,” unlike the property here. Id. 

 Regardless, the bad faith inquiry associated with deciding the pending motion does 

not turn on whether plaintiff was in compliance with discovery rules when he visited defendants’ 

gas station, but whether the amendment is sought in bad faith with a dilatory motive such as, for 

example, an attempt to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Yates v. Auto City 76, 299 F.R.D. 611, 

614 (N.D. Cal. 2013); Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp., 826 F.2d 794, 805 (9th Cir. 1987). No bad 

faith motive in seeking amendment can be inferred here. There is no evidence before the court 

indicating plaintiff seeks leave to prolong litigation or to save a meritless case. This factor 

weighs in favor of amendment. 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 04/07/15 Page 6 of 8
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 

7

 To the extent defendants believe in good faith they can bring a separate motion for 

discovery sanctions before the magistrate judge, they will not be precluded from doing so. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

c. Futility 

 A claim is considered futile and leave to amend shall not be given if there is no set 

of facts that could be proved under the amendment to constitute a valid claim. See Miller v. 

Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants argue plaintiff’s request should be 

denied as futile because his first amended complaint relies on privileged statements made by 

defendants’ attorney confirming the defendants’ gas station intends to refuse him service. Opp’n 

at 9. 

 It is a violation of the ADA to discriminate against a person because they have 

made a charge or participated in a proceeding under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). Here, 

plaintiff alleges defendants refused service and prohibited plaintiff from visiting their store, an 

adverse action, after he filed an ADA action against them, a protected activity. He says 

defendants allegedly hung an 8.5 x 11” photo of plaintiff on the wall of their store and employees 

were instructed not to serve him. See Proposed FAC ¶ 19. Defendants do not deny these 

allegations in their opposition. Plaintiff need not rely on defendants’ attorney’s statements to 

state a colorable claim. 

d. Undue Delay 

 Delay is evaluated by asking “whether the moving party knew or should have 

known the facts and theories raised by the amendment in the original pleading.” Jackson v. Bank 

of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1990). For the reasons reviewed above, this factor 

weighs in favor of granting amendment. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended complaint 

(ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file on the docket the first 

amended complaint lodged as an exhibit to the motion (ECF No. 17). The pending motion for 

summary judgment (ECF No. 33) is DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice. Defendants’ 

Case 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 04/07/15 Page 7 of 8
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 

8

request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to refiling before the magistrate judge, if 

defendants are able to renew their request while fully complying with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11. 

 The schedule for this case is MODIFIED as follows: all discovery shall be 

completed by May 15, 2015; designations of expert witnesses are due by June 5, 2015, and any 

expert rebuttal due by June 19, 2015; all expert discovery shall be completed by July 17, 2015; all 

dispositive motions shall be heard no later than August 27, 2015; the Final Pretrial Conference is 

SET for October 29, 2015 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3 before the undersigned, with a joint 

pretrial conference statement due by October 22, 2015; the Jury Trial is continued and now SET 

for November 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, with trial briefs due by November 9, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 6, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00115-KJM-EFB Document 35 Filed 04/07/15 Page 8 of 8