Trujillo v. Gogna
1:22-cv-00707
E.D. Cal.Mar 14, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Jose Trujillo filed suit alleging ADA and disabled access violations against Paul Gogna (d/b/a Prince Food & Gas), Huda-Cal. Properties, LLC, and Akbar Ali Huda regarding a facility in Visalia, California.
- The court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, citing improper service on Gogna and insufficient evidence that the other defendants were correct parties.
- Plaintiff dismissed Akbar Ali Huda and moved to amend the complaint to address the prior defects—specifically the proper relationship and ownership roles of the Defendants—and to extend time for service.
- Plaintiff’s motion included additional documentation establishing that Gogna is the tenant/operator and Huda-Cal. Properties, LLC is the property owner.
- No opposition was filed by Defendants to the motion for leave to amend or the request for more time to serve.
- The court considered the motion on the papers, vacated the hearing, and granted both leave to amend and the service extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to Amend Complaint | Plaintiff seeks to add details and clarify party roles based on new evidence. | No opposition filed. | Leave to amend granted. |
| Extension of Time for Service | Extension needed to serve amended complaint efficiently on proper parties. | No opposition filed. | Extension to effect service granted. |
| Proper Defendants Identified | Updated complaint names actual operator (Gogna) and property owner (Huda-Cal. Properties, LLC). | No opposition filed. | Motion to amend permitted to correct party roles. |
| Prejudice or Bad Faith | Amendment is timely, not in bad faith, and causes no prejudice. | No opposition filed. | Court finds no bad faith, delay, or prejudice; grants amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) (liberal standard for granting leave to amend under Rule 15)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”)
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (factors for considering leave to amend)
- United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1981) (purpose of Rule 15 is to facilitate decision on merits)
- DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) (burden of demonstrating prejudice with party opposing amendment)
- Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2004) (five-factor test for leave to amend in Ninth Circuit)
- Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) (futility alone may justify denial of leave to amend)