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

ORDER 

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHELLE BEARDSHEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAZEL DELL LANES, INC.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5305RJB

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND THE

COMPLAINT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the

Complaint (Dkt. 20-1). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion and

the file herein.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2006, plaintiff Michelle Beardshear filed suit in federal court alleging that she

was denied access to a Skipper’s Restaurant owned, leased, or operated by the defendant because

the restaurant is not accessible to people with disabilities. Dkt. 1. The complaint lists the following

claims: (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and (2) violation of the Washington

Law Against Discrimination. Id. The defendant filed its answer on July 14, 2006. Dkt. 10.

Ms. Beardshear now seeks to amend her complaint to bring her claims against an

additional restaurant and add Skipper’s, Inc., the operator of both restaurants, as defendant. The

defendant has not responded to the motion.

Case 3:06-cv-05305-RJB Document 22 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER 

Page 2

II. DISCUSSION

A “plaintiff’s petition to amend its pleadings to add . . . a party defendant brings into

consideration Rules 15 and 20 of the Federal Rules.” Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co., 623

F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1980). Federal Rule 15 provides as follows: 

A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served. . . . Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only

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

when justice so requires.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a). It appears that the plaintiff has been unable to secure the written consent

of the defendant and therefore seeks leave of court to amend the complaint. Dkt. 20-1 at 2.

Federal Rule 20 provides for the permissive joinder of parties if the plaintiff asserts “any

right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of

transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise

in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 20(a). These rules afford the courts discretion, and “courts have

shown a strong liberality in allowing parties to amend their pleadings when such amendments have

satisfied the explicit requirements of the rules.” Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co., 623 F.2d

1371, 1375-76 (9th 1980). If the explicit requirements are satisfied, courts consider several

factors before determining whether to grant leave to amend. Id. at 1375.

Both explicit requirements are met in this case. The series of transactions or occurrences

at issue in this case is the plaintiff’s visits to Skipper’s Restaurants. The common questions of law

and fact include whether the conditions at the two restaurants, some of which are alleged to be

the same, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Washington Law Against

Discrimination. 

The plaintiff having satisfied the specific requirements of Rules 15 and 20, the Court must

now consider the following factors:

the possible prejudice that may result to any of the parties in the litigation, the delay of the

moving party in seeking an amendment to his pleadings, the motive that the moving party

has in seeking such amendment, the closeness of the relationship between the new and the

old parties, the effect of an amendment on the court's jurisdiction, and the new party’s

notice of the pending action. 

Case 3:06-cv-05305-RJB Document 22 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER 

Page 3

Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co., 623 F.2d at 1375.

First, the defendant has not opposed the motion and does not contend that it will be

prejudiced by the addition of Skipper’s Inc. 

Second, there is no indication that the plaintiff delayed in seeking to amend the complaint.

The fact that the motion to amend was filed before the November 3, 2006, deadline for filing

motions to join additional parties is relevant to this factor. See Dkt. 19. 

Third, the motive of the plaintiff in seeking to amend the complaint does not appear to be

improper, and the defendant makes no such allegation. 

Fourth, the relationship between the new and old parties can be characterized as close.

The complaint names Hazel Dell Lanes, Inc. as defendant. Hazel Dell Lanes, Inc. is named as “the

owner, lessee and/or operator of the real property and improvements which is [sic] the subject of

this action, to wit: the Skippers Restaurant, located at 6304 N.E. Highway 99, Vancouver,

Washington.” Dkt. 1 at 2. According to the defendant’s initial disclosures, which have not yet

been filed with the Court, Skipper’s Inc. is a lessee of Hazel Dell Lanes, Inc. Dkt. 20-1 at 2. 

Fifth, it appears that adding Skipper’s Inc. would not disturb the Court’s federal question

jurisdiction. 

Finally, it is likely that the new party, Skipper’s Inc., had notice of this action by virtue of

its connection to its lessor Hazel Dell Lanes, Inc. and the lessor’s status as a defendant in this

case. The Court should therefore permit the plaintiff to amend the complaint to join Skipper’s Inc.

as a defendant. 

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 20-1) is

GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

Case 3:06-cv-05305-RJB Document 22 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER 

Page 4

DATED this _______ day of November, 2006.

______________________

Robert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05305-RJB Document 22 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 4