Abea v. Odiye

Background

Karla Abea, identified as the plaintiff-relator, rented the upper unit of a San Francisco single-family home converted into two units. The units shared electricity, gas, and water meters. Her tenancy received assistance through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, administered by the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), which received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under a housing-assistance payment contract, or HAP Contract, subsidy payments were made directly to the landlord based on the SFHA’s calculation of reasonable rent.

Abea’s complaint asserted twelve claims against Debbie Odiye, Godwin Odiye, and Does 1 through 50, including claims under the federal False Claims Act and various state and local laws. The court’s scheduling order required requests for leave to amend by June 28, 2019. Abea later moved to amend after that deadline.

Amendment Requests

Abea sought to amend the allegations concerning the HAP Contract based on an SFHA employee’s deposition and documents from the SFHA tenancy file. She wanted to allege that the contract was written and to plead alternative theories about responsibility for utility payments. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), which requires a party seeking amendment after a scheduling deadline to show “good cause,” primarily through diligence. The court denied this request because Abea had not shown why she waited to investigate the HAP Contract and had received the tenancy file by email before the amendment deadline.

Abea also sought to add a tenant-harassment claim under San Francisco Administrative Code section 37.10B. She relied on allegations concerning a $100 parking charge, the withdrawal of parking privileges, and an attempted demand for additional security-deposit funds. She cited two letters as evidence of bad faith. The court denied this request because the underlying events occurred before the amendment deadline, the original complaint already described them, and the letters did not establish good cause for the delayed amendment.

The court granted Abea’s request to withdraw her California Civil Code section 1942.4 claim because she acknowledged that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The defendants did not oppose that request.

Motion to Strike and Sanctions

The court granted the defendants’ motion to strike confidential settlement discussions that Abea’s attorney had included in an exhibit to the amendment motion. The court stated that it did not rely on that information and directed the parties not to place settlement discussions in court files.

The court denied the defendants’ request for monetary sanctions under Rule 16(f). It concluded that filing Abea’s amendment motion did not amount to recklessness, gross negligence, repeated disregard of court rules, or intentional misconduct.

Disposition

The court held that Abea’s motion to amend was granted in part and denied in part: the request to withdraw the section 1942.4 claim was granted, while the other amendment requests were denied. The motion to strike was granted, the sanctions request was denied, all other motions were denied, and the November 21, 2019 hearing was vacated. Judge William Alsup signed the order.