Rust v. Target Corporation ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PEGGY RUST, an individual, Case No.: 20-cv-2349-WQH-DEB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 TARGET CORPORATION, a business organization form 14 unknown; and DOES 1-10, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint filed by 19 Plaintiff Peggy Rust. (ECF No. 22). 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff Peggy Rust filed a Complaint against Defendants 22 Target Corporation (“Target”) and Does 1 through 10 in the Superior Court for the State 23 of California, County of San Diego. (Ex. A to Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1-3 at 3). Rust 24 brings one claim against Defendants for negligence under section 1714(a) of the California 25 Civil Code arising from a slip and fall at a Target store in Chula Vista. 26 On December 2, 2020, Defendant Target removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 27 1). On December 5, 2020, Rust filed a Motion to Remand to State Court. (ECF No. 6). On 28 1 February 16, 2021, the Court issued an Order denying the Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 2 18). 3 On March 4, 2021, Rust filed a Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 4 22). Rust seeks leave to amend the Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages under 5 section 3294 of the California Civil Code and to add factual allegations. Rust contends that 6 the Court should allow amendment because “the Updated Joint Discovery Plan, signed by 7 counsel for both parties, included Plaintiff’s stated intent to amend . . . to add new claims[,] 8 . . . [and] Defendant interposed no objection . . . .” (ECF No. 22-1 at 2). 9 On March 22, 2021, Target filed an Opposition to the Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s 10 Complaint. (ECF No. 26). Target’s “only objection is that the pleading improperly contains 11 ‘Doe Defendants’ which are not permitted in Federal Court.” (Id. at 2). Target contends 12 that inclusion of the Doe Defendants is futile because their identities are unknown and 13 cannot be identified through discovery. 14 The docket reflects that Rust did not file any reply. 15 II. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be 17 freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied 18 with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 19 Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 20 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should 21 consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “undue delay, bad faith or 22 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 23 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 24 allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 25 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). 26 “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it 27 is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 28 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 1 showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 2 “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists 3 a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 4 316 F.3d at 1052. 5 III. RULING OF THE COURT 6 In the Complaint, Rust alleges that alleges that on April 5, 2019, she slipped and fell 7 in a large puddle of spilled cleaning solution while shopping at a Target store in Chula 8 Vista, causing injury. The proposed amended complaint adds allegations that Rust incurred 9 medical bills related to surgery exceeding $152,000.00. The proposed amended complaint 10 adds allegations that Target failed to record any inspections of the aisle where Rust fell and 11 intentionally allowed a dangerous condition to develop. The proposed amended complaint 12 adds a claim for punitive damages under section 3294 of the California Civil Code. 13 “[T]he sufficiency of an amended pleading ordinarily will not be considered on a 14 motion for leave to amend.” Breier v. N. Cal. Bowling Proprietors’ Ass’n, 316 F.2d 787, 15 790 (9th Cir. 1963); see Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) 16 (“Denial of leave to amend on [futility] ground[s] is rare.”). “If the underlying facts or 17 circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be 18 afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Doe 19 Defendants were included in the original Complaint, and Rust does not seek to add 20 additional Doe Defendants in the proposed amended complaint. The Court will defer 21 consideration of the challenges to the merits of the proposed amended complaint until after 22 the amended pleading is filed. See Netbula, 212 F.R.D. at 539 (“Ordinarily, courts will 23 defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after 24 leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.”); Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. 25 v. Toshiba Corp., No. C-04-4708 VRW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82148, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 26 Oct. 31, 2006) (Defendant’s challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading 27 “should be addressed in a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, not in an opposition 28 to the present motion for leave to amend.”). Target has not made “a strong showing” that 1 would be prejudiced by the amendment or that the remaining Foman factors warrant 2 || deviating from the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” 3 || Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (emphasis omitted). 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF 5 || No. 22) is granted. Rust shall file the proposed amended complaint attached to the Motion 6 || (ECF No. 22-2) within five (5) days of the date of this Order. 7 g || DATED: April 8, 2021 pitta fe. Mageo— 9 Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28