Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00450-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Moore
Plaintiff
Quick Stop Mini Mart
Defendant
Baldev Singh
Defendant
Parkash Singh
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BALDEV SINGH, individually and dba QUICK 

STOP MINI MART, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00450-SKO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO AMEND

(Doc. No. 18)

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 16, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald Moore ("Plaintiff") filed a motion to amend the 

complaint. No opposition was filed by either Defendant Baldev Singh or Parkash Singh, 

individually and dba Quick Stop Mini Mart (collectively, "Defendants"). For the reasons set forth 

below, Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED.

Case 1:15-cv-00450-SKO Document 19 Filed 10/02/15 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

2

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed suit on March 20, 2015, asserting claims under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the California Unruh Act, and a claim that Plaintiff was denied 

full and equal access to public facilities in violation of California state law. (Doc. 1.) A 

scheduling order was issued on July 21, 2015. The parties' joint scheduling report noted Plaintiff 

anticipated filing an amended complaint, and the deadline to seek amendment to the complaint, 

either by stipulation or by motion, was set for October 23, 2015. (Doc. 17.)

On September 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint after he was 

unable to obtain a stipulation to file an amended complaint from Defendants. (Doc. 18.)

III. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that a party may amend its pleading only by 

leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party and that leave shall be freely given when 

justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that the policy 

favoring amendments "is to be applied with extreme liberality." Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The factors commonly considered to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to 

amend are: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, and (4) futility of 

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 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, a presumption in favor of granting leave to 

amend exists under Rule 15(a). Id. Further, undue delay alone is insufficient to justify denial of a 

motion to amend. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). Finally, "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). Contra Union Pac. 

R.R. Co. v. Nev. Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991) ("Amendments seeking to add 

claims are to be granted more freely than amendments adding parties.").

Case 1:15-cv-00450-SKO Document 19 Filed 10/02/15 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

3

Here, Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to allege additional barriers found at 

Defendants' facility as a result of a property inspection that occurred after the scheduling order 

was issued. As it pertains to prejudice to the Defendants, the motion to amend has been made 

within the scheduling deadline to seek amendment, the non-expert discovery deadline is set for 

March 25, 2016, and Defendants have adequate time to address the additional barriers included in 

the proposed First Amended Complaint. The basis for the claims has been known to all the parties 

since discovery was opened and amendment of the complaint in this regard was anticipated. There 

appears to be no undue delay on the part of Plaintiff in seeking amendment and no evidence of bad 

faith in amending the complaint in the proposed manner. Finally, no party has opposed Plaintiff's

motion to amend. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that comports to the proposed First 

Amended Complaint attached as an exhibit to their motion within three 

(3) days from the date of this order; and

3. Defendants shall file an amended answer within the time required by Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00450-SKO Document 19 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 3