Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 22AHCV00408, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00408, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

On June 24, 2022, plaintiff Perla Mageno (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Unice, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). Plaintiff alleges she is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires reading software to read website content using a computer and was unable to access Defendant’s website, www.unice.com. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff explicitly states that she does not base her claims on any physical or architectural barrier in any public place of accommodation. (Compl., ¶ 8.)

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff requests leave to add allegations about: (1) the specific defects on Defendant’s website, (2) the relationship between Defendant and the actual operator of the website and the direct benefits Defendant derives from said relationship and website, (3) her experience at Defendant’s brick-and-mortar store in Carson, California on March 11, 2023.
Defendant filed an opposition brief on May 9, 2023.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) provides: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

The court has broad discretion to permit amendments to pleadings, and “the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Ibid.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend . . . .” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(1).) A motion to amend a pleading must also be supported by a declaration which specifies the following: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff claims her counsel recently learned that Defendant does not “own” the website and that the website is owned by an international entity located in Hong Kong. (Motion, p. 1.) This discovery was made when Plaintiff’s counsel received Defendant’s discovery responses in January 2023. (Reply, p. 1.) Plaintiff argues that in order to state a claim, the complaint must be amended to allege a nexus between the website and Defendant’s brick-and-mortar stores to show that Defendant is the “owner/operator of the places of public accommodation that benefit from the services offered on the website.” (Motion, p. 1; Reply, p. 1.) Plaintiff also wishes to add allegations about: (1) her recent visit to Defendant’s brick-and-mortar location on March 11, 2023, and (2) the specific barriers identified by a Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies on September 27, 2022.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend her complaint because trial is set for July 24, 2023. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff should be adding the Hong Kong entity as the actual owner of the website. (Opp., pp. 4-5.) Defendant claims that Plaintiff is “fluff[ing] up additional claims to connect [it] to the issues with the website” by adding allegations about her visit to its store in Carson. (Opp., p. 4.) Defendant further claims that Plaintiff insists on keeping Defendant in this case and will not add the Hong Kong entity (which Defendant claims is the true culprit) because defense counsel refused to accept service on the Hong Kong entity’s behalf. (Ibid.)

Defense counsel admits that he only recently discovered his client’s relationship with the website during the discovery process. (Gross Decl., ¶ 3.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel attaches Defendant’s discovery responses which were only served on January 13, 2023. (Fitzgerald Reply Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff filed this motion on April 14, 2023, which is not an unreasonable amount of time after discovering the pertinent facts. Therefore, Defendant does not show that Plaintiff has delayed in seeking amendment, nor does it show how amendment would be prejudicial.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file her proposed first amended complaint within 5 days of the date of this hearing.

On its own motion, the Court sets a trial setting conference for _______ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.