Bollinger v. Starbucks Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in an action alleging ADA, California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and unjust enrichment claims against Starbucks Corporation. The court concludes that undue delay, prejudice, bad faith, and futility do not warrant denying amendment, and sets three-day and twenty-one-day deadlines for filing the amended complaint and responsive pleading.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend should be granted because Rule 15(a)(2) favors amendment when justice so requires, and the record did not establish a sufficient reason to deny leave.
2. Defendant failed to show undue delay or substantial prejudice sufficient to deny leave to amend.
3. The record did not establish that plaintiffs sought amendment in bad faith or for a dilatory motive.
4. The proposed amendment was not clearly futile because plaintiffs stated colorable claims under the ADA, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and unjust-enrichment law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a second amended complaint.
2. Whether the proposed amendment should be denied because of undue delay or substantial prejudice.
3. Whether the proposed amendment was brought in bad faith or for a dilatory motive.
4. Whether the proposed second amended complaint was futile because its claims would be subject to immediate dismissal.

Disposition

other