Douglas Longhini, et al. v. Koval Lane Hospitality, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Douglas Longhini, et al., No.: 2:25-cv-01067-MDC 4 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND 5 vs. (ECF NO. 20) 6 7 Koval Lane Hospitality, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Amend (“Motion”) (ECF No. 20). 10 For good cause shown and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 13 This is a case arising out of alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 14 ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs move to amend their complaint to substitute Fame Operating Company, Inc. in 15 place of defendants Koval Lane Hospitality, LLC and Ellis Island Casino Interactive, LLC. See ECF No. 16 20 at 2. The Court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ previous Motion to Amend (ECF No. 12) and 17 struck their proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (ECF No. 18). ECF No. 19. By their 18 current Motion, Plaintiffs state that proposed new defendant Fame Operating Company, Inc. is the entity 19 that controls the property at issue and is the proper defendant. Plaintiffs represent that they have 20 conferred with counsel for Fame Operating Company, Inc. about their Motion, who consents to the 21 Motion. Currently named defendants Koval Lane Hospitality, LLC and Ellis Island Casino Interactive, 22 LLC have not appeared. 23 // 24 // 25 1 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Generally, a party may amend its pleadings “as a matter of course” within 21 days of serving it 3 or within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 15(a)(1). Otherwise, amendments are only permitted “with the opposing party’s written consent or the 5 court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when 6 justice so requires.” Id. Generally, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 15(a) should be “applied with 7 extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). “Five 8 factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue 9 delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously 10 amended the complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 11 Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 12 1052 (“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 13 deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 14 allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 15 (1962). “In exercising this discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15—to 16 facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 17 942 F.2d 617, 628 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 18 Ultimately, there is considerable deference to amendment and the analysis “should be performed with all 19 inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 20 1999). 21 III. ANALYSIS 22 Plaintiffs seeks leave of Court to file their SAC. ECF No. 20. Currently named defendants Koval 23 Lane Hospitality, LLC and Ellis Island Casino Interactive, LLC have not appeared and proposed 24 substitute defendant, Fame Operating Company, Inc., consents to the Motion. The Court also finds good 25 2 1 || cause exists to grant plaintiffs’ leave to amend. There is no apparent bad faith or undue delay in the 2 || Motion. The amendments do not appear to prejudice the defendants. The amendments do not appear to 3 || be futile. This would be the first time that plaintiffs would have leave of the Court to amend their 4 || complaint. Thus, good cause exists to grant plaintiffs’ leave to amend. 5 ACCORDINGLY, 6 IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. The Unopposed Motion to Amend (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs shall file the proposed amended complaint by no later than October 13, 2025. 9 10 DATED: October 6, 2025 D IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hor/Maximiianb ‘Couvillier II 15 Uffited Sins Mt Judge 16 NOTICE 17 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 1g || recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 19 || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 29 || may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 91 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 99 || objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 23 || waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 44 || District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 95 || Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, the plaintiffs must immediately file

1 written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 2 service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 3 counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4