VIVIAN SALAZAR v. TAPESTRY INC (2025)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE THE NAMED PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff Vivian Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed this putative class action lawsuit against Tapestry, Inc. (“Defendant”), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act based on Defendant's “failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.” (Dkt. No. 18 (“Compl.”) ¶ 2.) Now, Plaintiff requests leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute Richard Paul Merrell as the named plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 51.) For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. This order assumes that the reader is familiar with the facts of the case, the applicable legal standards, and the parties' arguments.

Plaintiff Salazar requested leave to amend the complaint on May 6, 2025, after the deadline to amend pleadings had already passed. As such, Plaintiff must demonstrate that “good cause” exists to modify the scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). “Unlike Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Id. If the “good cause” standard is satisfied, the Court will then determine if amendment under Rule 15(a) is appropriate.

Plaintiff has satisfied the good cause standard. Over the last few months, “Ms. Salazar and proposed class counsel engaged in privileged and confidential conversations concerning Ms. Salazar's ability to continue as class representative.” (Dkt. No. 51-1 (“Coelho Decl.”) at 2.)¹ In those conversations, Ms. Salazar described “health concerns that have come along with changes in her personal circumstances.” (Id.) As a result, proposed class counsel initiated a search for “potential additional class representatives who could be substituted to protect the class's interests.” (Id.) Ms. Salazar's health issues provide good cause to allow the belated amendment.

Defendant argues that proposed class counsel “feigns that Ms. Salazar has a medical issue, but has provided no evidence of that issue.” (Dkt. No. 54 at 5.) However, proposed class counsel's signed declaration is sufficient where the defendant presents no evidence or basis to believe that counsel's representations are false.

Defendant further argues that proposed class counsel lacked diligence in requesting leave to substitute the named plaintiff. On March 26, 2025, Defendant's counsel's office conferred with Plaintiff's counsel in a different ADA lawsuit involving Ms. Salazar, during which “Plaintiff's counsel advised that Ms. Salazar would be withdrawing as lead plaintiff on that matter.” (Id. at 6.) Defendant's counsel asked Plaintiff's counsel if Ms. Salazar would be withdrawing from this lawsuit on April 2, 2025, and on April 8, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel answered that she would. (Id. at 7.) The motion to amend was filed on May 6, 2025. That does not show a lack of diligence. Plaintiff's counsel attested that as of April 2, 2025, he “still needed to confirm from Ms. Salazar whether she intended to continue as the class representative in the Tapestry matter or if the substitute representative should move forward in her stead,” and that as soon as Ms. Salazar confirmed her withdrawal, Plaintiff's counsel communicated that information to Defendant's counsel. (Dkt. No. 55 at 3.) The subsequent delay before the filing of the motion appears to be the result of counsels' back and forth about whether Defendant would stipulate to the filing of the amended complaint. Counsel was sufficiently diligent, and good cause exists to modify the scheduling order.

Amendment under Rule 15(a) is likewise appropriate. Allowing substitution will conserve judicial resources and protect the interests of the class. There is no likelihood of prejudice or undue delay. The case remains at an early stage, prior to dispositive motions and class certification. Mr. Merrell would be bringing the same claims on an almost identical factual basis as Ms. Salazar. Moreover, although the Court stayed discovery in this case pending resolution of this motion, Plaintiff's counsel was directed to prepare discovery as to both Ms. Salazar and Mr. Merrell in anticipation that discovery would be ordered on a short timeline.

The motion is therefore granted. The proposed second amended class action complaint (Dkt. No. 51-2) will be treated as the operative complaint. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding discovery and case deadlines, and to submit either a stipulation and proposed order for a new schedule, or if agreement cannot be reached, a joint filing explaining the dispute and each party's proposed schedule, to the Court by July 1, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Citations to page numbers refer to the ECF pagination.

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge