Macias v. KDF Foxdale, L.P.

Background

Lena Macias sued KDF Foxdale, L.P., KDF Communities-Foxdale, LLC, and VPM Management, Inc. She alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and supplemental California laws. Macias alleged that the defendants refused reasonable accommodations for disabled persons and failed to make common areas at Foxdale Village Apartments adaptable to disabled tenants. Her first amended complaint also added retaliation allegations.

After an April 5, 2019 site inspection, Macias’s expert prepared a report identifying additional alleged accessibility barriers. Macias moved on February 11, 2020, before the March 2, 2020 pleading-amendment deadline in the scheduling order, for permission to file a second amended complaint. The proposed amendment would add allegations concerning the inspection report and add Personal Protective Services, Inc., which Macias alleged provided security services at the property. KDF and VPM opposed the motion.

Rule applied

The defendants argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 applied because the motion was filed after the scheduling order was entered. Rule 16 generally requires a showing of “good cause” to modify a scheduling order. The court disagreed because the scheduling order required the motion to be filed—not resolved—by March 2, 2020. Because Macias filed the motion on February 11, the court applied Rule 15, under which leave to amend should generally be freely given unless there is undue prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the defendants’ prejudice argument. To address possible prejudice concerning discovery on the new allegations, the court continued the discovery deadlines by approximately 60 days. The court also found unpersuasive KDF’s argument that the timing of the motion, after mediation, unfairly affected evaluation of the case because the defendants had received the expert report before mediation.

The court acknowledged that Macias could have moved to amend sooner, but held that delay alone was insufficient to deny leave. It also rejected the bad-faith arguments, finding that waiting until after mediation and selecting the hearing date did not show bad faith.

The defendants argued that amendment would be futile because the new allegations concerned residential areas not covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Applying the standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, the court accepted the proposed complaint’s factual allegations as true. It concluded that the allegations that the leasing office, walkways, paths of travel, and parking facilities were open to the public were enough, at this stage, for the defendants to have failed to show that the amendment was futile. The court also noted that the Federal Fair Housing Act and related California claims did not depend on the property being a public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Disposition

The court granted Macias’s motion for leave to file the second amended complaint. It also modified the scheduling order to continue the discovery deadlines by approximately 60 days and stated that it would issue an updated scheduling order. The order addressed permission to amend the pleadings and scheduling; it did not resolve the merits of Macias’s underlying disability-access, housing, retaliation, or related claims.