United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND [RE: ECF 36]
LAB SON FREEMAN, United States District Judge
the Court is Plaintiff Rachelle Ridola
(“Ridola”)'s motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint (“FAC”) adding allegations
directed to accessibility barriers identified during the
joint site inspection. Mot. 2, ECF 36-1. The time to oppose
the motion has elapsed and no opposition has been filed.
Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the Court finds Ridola's
motion for leave to amend suitable for submission without
oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for
October 26, 2017. As set forth below, the Court finds that
the factors weigh in favor of granting leave and hereby
GRANTS the motion.
brings this suit against Ingrid Chao and Nelson Chao
(collectively, “Defendants”), d/b/a Executive
Inn-Morgan Hill (“Motel”), for allegedly failing
to make the Motel and its parking lot accessible to all
customers regardless of disability. Compl., ¶¶ 1-2,
ECF 1. The complaint was filed on April 25, 2016. Mot. 2. The
joint site inspection was conducted on August 5, 2016.
Id.; Ex. B to Mot. Ridola avers that the joint sit
inspection report identified 46 accessibility barriers
related to her disability. Id.; Mot. 2.
parties attended a court-sponsored mediation on December 20,
2016 and a settlement conference held by Magistrate Judge
Nathaniel Cousins on May 6, 2017. Mot. 2. However, no
settlement was reached.
March 23, 2017, the parties appeared for an initial case
management conference and the Court subsequently issued a
scheduling order, setting the last day to amend the pleadings
60 days from the date of the order - May 22, 2017.
9, 2017, Ridola asked Defendants to stipulate to the proposed
FAC but Defendants did not respond to the request.
Id. at 3. Ridola then filed the instant motion on May
22, 2017. Mot.
as here, a party moves to amend its pleadings on or before
the deadline to amend the pleadings, a motion for leave to
amend is evaluated under Rule 15. See Coleman v. Quaker
Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000).
provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, the
Court must consider the factors set forth by the Supreme
Court in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), and
discussed at length by the Ninth Circuit in Eminence
Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.
2009). A district court ordinarily must grant leave to amend
unless one or more of the Foman factors is present:
(1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3)
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue
prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) futility of
amendment. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.
“[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing
party that carries the greatest weight.” Id.
However a strong showing with respect to one of the other
factors may warrant denial of leave to amend. Id.
factor of “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendment” does not apply here because this would be
the first amendment of the complaint. However, the Court
finds that the remaining factors weigh in favor of granting
leave to amend for reasons set forth below.
Undue Delay; Bad Faith or Dilatory Motive
argues that even if there has been some delay in seeking
leave to amend, the delay is not undue and she is seeking
this amendment in good faith. Mot. 5. Specifically, Ridola
first attempted to resolve the case during the December 20,
2016 mediation and later during the May 6, 2017 settlement
conference. Id. Ridola avers that she was under a
good faith belief that a settlement would be forthcoming and
so believed that amending the complaint would be unnecessary
and premature. Id. Moreover, Ridola claims that the
amendment does not add ...