Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ronald Moore v. Jaswinder Singh Sidhu

April 12, 2012

RONALD MOORE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (Docket No. 34)

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 24, 2012, Plaintiff Ronald Moore ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 34.) On March 23, 2012, Defendants Jaswinder Singh Sidhu ("Sidhu") and Kasmira Singh Narwal ("Narwal") dba Scotty's Liquor Store filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (Doc. 42.) Defendant Louis A. Gomez, Co-Trustee of the Louis A. Gomez and Lydia A. Gomez Revocable Living Trust Dated May 4, 2007, ("Gomez") did not file an opposition.

The Court has reviewed the motion and supporting documents and has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g); as such, the hearing currently scheduled for April 18, 2012, is VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Sidhu, Narwal, Gomez, and Lydia A. Gomez, Co-Trustee of the Louis A. Gomez and Lydia A. Gomez Revocable Living Trust Dated May 4, 2007, ("Lydia"), alleging causes of action under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and for Denial of Full and Equal Access to Public Facilities. (Doc. 2.) On February 22, 2011, Defendant Gomez filed an answer, and on March 7, 2011, Defendants Sidhu and Narwal filed an answer.*fn1 (Docs. 6, 15.)

A scheduling conference was held on November 29, 2011, and the Court issued a scheduling order on December 2, 2011. (Docs. 29, 32.) The scheduling order provided that any requests to amend the pleadings must be filed by February 24, 2012. (Doc. 32, 2:6-16.)

On February 17, 2012, an inspection of Defendants' facility was conducted by a California Certified Access Specialist. (Doc. 34-3, Moore Decl., ¶ 2.) On February 24, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel received the Specialist's report identifying all accessibility barriers. (Doc. 34-3, Moore Decl., ¶ 2.) On that date, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend. (Doc. 34.)

A settlement conference was held on March 22, 2012. (Doc. 40.) The case did not settle, but a further settlement conference was scheduled for April 11, 2012. (Doc. 40.) As such, the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to amend, originally scheduled for April 4, 2012, was continued to April 18, 2012, to allow for ongoing settlement negotiations. (Doc. 41.)

On April 9, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting that the settlement conference set for April 11, 2012, be continued to June 5, 2012, to allow the parties additional time to "meaningfully participate in the settlement discussions." (Doc. 43, 2:1-2.) The Court approved the stipulation and continued the settlement conference. (Doc. 44.) Accordingly, the Court now considers Plaintiff's motion to amend. (Doc. 34.)

III. DISCUSSION

The Court issued a scheduling order on December 2, 2011, stating that "[a]ny motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than 2/24/2012." (Doc. 32, 2:8-9.) The parties were advised that "[a]ll proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, . . . and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile." (Doc. 32, 2:11-16 (citations omitted).)

A. Plaintiff Exhibited Diligence and Good Cause as Required under Federal Rule of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.