Hernandez v. Roberts of Woodside

Background

Gerardo Hernandez sued Roberts of Woodside, doing business as Roberts Market, and George Roberts Market Property LLC. He alleged that he is substantially limited in walking and uses a wheelchair. According to the complaint, he visited Roberts Market on September 14, 2019, and encountered access barriers, including an uneven second floor without an elevator or wheelchair-accessible route.

Hernandez asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Health and Safety Code section 19953. After a required facility inspection, discussions between the parties, and mediation did not resolve the dispute, Hernandez moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 for permission to file a first amended complaint. The proposed amendment would add access barriers identified after the original complaint was filed.

The Court’s Analysis

Rule 15 generally permits amendment with the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission. Courts consider bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, whether the amendment would be futile, and whether the complaint had previously been amended. The court said these factors should generally favor allowing amendment.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the amendment was brought in bad faith because Hernandez was allegedly a serial litigant or was trying to increase settlement pressure. The court stated that an ADA plaintiff may seek injunctive relief for barriers related to the plaintiff’s disability even if the plaintiff did not personally encounter every barrier. It also found no improper delay because Hernandez moved to amend shortly after the court’s scheduling order and had first provided the proposed amended complaint to the defendants.

The court found no undue prejudice. Hernandez’s original complaint and the parties’ case-management statement had indicated that he intended to add additional barriers after an investigation, and the scheduling order set a deadline for amendments that he met.

The court also found the amendment was not futile. It concluded that Hernandez’s allegations of a disability, wheelchair use, a personally encountered barrier related to his disability, interference with access, and deterrence from returning were enough to establish standing at this stage. The court explained that the merits of the claims should instead be addressed through a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, not through the request for permission to amend. The court also noted Hernandez’s clarification that he sought the $4,000 minimum statutory damages for his visit, not $4,000 for each alleged barrier.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Hernandez’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. It ordered Hernandez to file the amended complaint by August 7, 2020. The court did not decide whether the alleged ADA or state-law violations occurred or whether Hernandez would ultimately prevail on those claims.