Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21TRCV00814 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00814, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00814 Hearing Date: March 27, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: March 27, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV0000814

CASE NAME: James Shayler v. Jefferson Andrews LLC, et al

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Jefferson Andrews, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, James Shayler

TRIAL DATE: April 17, 2023

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Leave to Amend

Tentative Ruling: (1) Granted, and the trial date 0f 4/17/23 is vacated

¿¿

Plaintiff James Shayler (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on November 1, 2021 against Defendant, Jefferson Andrews, LLC (“Defendant”). His original complaint alleged violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) and the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiff has a mobility disability and Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges he encountered certain barriers to accessibility at a single business located at 300 W. Victoria St., Gardena, CA 90248 (“Property”) on or about October 19, 2021.

Plaintiff alleges that the CASp who went to the Property identified additional access barriers as to different businesses that relate to Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff now seeks to amend the complaint to include additional or other accessibility barriers identified by his expert that allegedly still exist at the Property. Defendant opposed the motion both on the merits and on procedural grounds. The court’s original tentative ruling for the February 27, 2023 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, was to deny because of those procedural grounds. At that time, the Court gave plaintiff the option of (A) re-filing a motion, correcting the procedural defects, or (B) continuing the hearing, correcting the defects, and allowing both sides the opportunity for another round of briefing. Plaintiff elected option (B).

Now that the redlined version has been provided and other procedural defects have been corrected, the Court now addresses the motion on its merits. The defense in its supplemental brief argues that leave to amend should be denied, because plaintiff cannot lawfully amend the complaint to expand the right to pursue a state-court remedy with respect to properties he did not personally encounter, and was not personally deterred from visiting. The defense notes that every precedent argued in plaintiff’s supplemental brief was decided under federal law, where only an injunction is permitted rather than monetary damages.

Plaintiff argues in his supplemental brief that the liberal rule of amending pleadings should rule the day, even though the Court would be vacating the existing trial date and re-opening discovery, if it were inclined to grant the motion. The Court concurs. While not disputing that he did not personally encounter the additional architectural barriers identified by his expert that are sought to be added by the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has been deterred from heading back to the subject property location in part because of the barriers he did personally encounter when he visited the property on that single occasion several years ago. Whether that will be sufficient under the Legislature’s tightened rules for state-court cases brought by high-frequency litigants will await decision after full briefing by both sides in the future.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for leave to file his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and vacates the existing trial date since the pleadings are no longer settled. Plaintiff shall file a stand-alone document forthwith, rather than an exhibit to another pleading, so the FAC will be readily identifiable in the digital court file. Defendant is ordered to file its threatened demurrer and/or motion to strike to the new pleading within 30 days of service of the FAC. In this way, the record will be made clear and the Court will consider at the future hearing whether the expanded scope of this litigation will proceed past the pleading stage. However, the Court on its own motion will stay discovery pending the Court's decision of the forthcoming demurrer to and or motion to strike portions of the FAC, lest the parties waste resources on allegations that may or may not be viable. A new trial date will be set at the time of that hearing as well.