Ortiz v. Westchester Med. Ctr. Health Care Corp.

• Decision Date: 18 November 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15 Civ. 5432 (NSR),15 Civ. 5432 (NSR)
• Parties: ALFRED ORTIZ and MARITZA ORTIZ, Plaintiffs, v. WESTCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER HEALTH CARE CORPORATION and ORANGE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

ALFRED ORTIZ and MARITZA ORTIZ, Plaintiffs, v. WESTCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER HEALTH CARE CORPORATIONand ORANGE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants.

No. 15 Civ. 5432 (NSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

November 18, 2016

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Alfred and Maritza Ortiz brought this action against Defendants Westchester Medical Center Health Care Corp. ("Westchester") and Orange Regional Medical Center ("Orange") alleging violations of the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 794; and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. With discovery underway, Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to correct certain factual and typographical mistakes, and to supplement their allegations supporting injunctive relief under the ADA. (ECF Nos. 48 & 50, Ex. A ("PAC").) Westchester opposes Plaintiffs' leave to amend the injunctive claim, primarily arguing the amendments are futile but also asserting they are made in bad faith, because the amendments do not—and cannot in light of Plaintiffs' deposition testimony—demonstrate that Plaintiffs have standing. (ECF No. 51.) For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to amend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Orange does not oppose Plaintiffs' motion, and Defendant Westchester only opposes the amendments offered in support of Plaintiffs' claim against it for injunctive relief under the ADA. The facts and background relevant to Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief as alleged against Westchester are set forth below.

I. Alleged Violations of the ADA by Westchester¹

Plaintiff Alfred Ortiz and his wife Plaintiff Maritza Ortiz are deaf individuals who communicate primarily by American Sign Language ("ASL") and have a limited understanding of the English language. (PAC ¶¶ 1, 16.) Mr. Ortiz was taken by ambulance to Westchester and hospitalized on January 25, 2015, after suffering a heart attack. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 37-38.) He underwent heart surgery on January 30, 2015, and was discharged on February 12, 2015. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.) He was readmitted the next day, February 13, 2015, with a diagnosis of a deep vein thrombosis in his right leg. (Id. ¶ 20.) He remained at Westchester until he was again discharged on February 22, 2015. (Id.) His wife accompanied him to Westchester and was often present during his hospitalization. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 21.)

Plaintiffs requested an ASL interpreter during Mr. Ortiz's treatment at Westchester, but their requests were flatly denied. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 22.) Instead, the staff at Westchester attempted to communicate with Plaintiffs by written notes or through an ineffective videoconferencing, or remote, interpretation system called "VRI." (Id. ¶ 23.) Choosing to use these ineffective forms of communication ostensibly reflects Westchester's failure to train employees and to promulgate non-discriminatory policies. (Id. ¶ 36.)

As a result of not receiving an onsite ASL interpreter, Plaintiffs did not fully understand Mr. Ortiz's condition, the care he received, or his discharge instructions (id. ¶ 24); were subject to greater levels of fear, anxiety, indignity, humiliation, and emotional distress (id. ¶ 33); and received substandard and discriminatory treatment (id. ¶¶ 34-35).

II. Allegations Specific to Plaintiffs' Claim for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs allege that "there is a clear risk that Defendants' actions will recur with Plaintiffs and/or additional deaf patients or companions." (Id. ¶ 52.) They ask the Court to "[e]njoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing any policy, procedure, or practice that denies deaf or hard of hearing individuals meaningful access to and full and equal enjoyment of Defendants' facilities, services or programs[.]" (Id. at 13 (Prayer for Relief, Part b).) To support their claim for injunctive relief, they allege that:

It is reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiffs will continue to visit Defendants' hospitals in the future, either by choice or necessity, as Plaintiffs live in close proximity to [Orange], as Alfred Ortiz suffers from a chronic heart condition and will likely need further medical care on a routine or emergency basis, and as Alfred Ortiz was taken to [Westchester] by ambulance when he suffered a heart attack in January of 2015 (id. ¶ 37);

Due to the proximity in which Plaintiffs live to Defendants' hospitals, and based on the fact that Alfred Ortiz was taken by ambulance to [Westchester] when he suffered a heart attack in January of 2015, it is reasonably foreseeable that those hospitals are where either Plaintiff would be taken via ambulance in an emergency healthcare situation (id. ¶ 38);

It is also reasonably foreseeable that Mr. and [Mrs.] Ortiz would accompany each other to either of Defendants' hospitals in the future, as they have done so in the past (id. ¶ 39 (Compl. ¶ 37)); and

Plaintiffs are aware of discriminatory barriers to access at Defendants' hospitals and are thereby deterred from accessing their healthcare services because of discrimination they have faced and expect to face in the future (id. ¶ 41 (Compl. ¶ 39)).

The additional facts contained in these allegations as compared to the original complaint are Mr. Ortiz's "chronic heart condition" and that he "was taken to [Westchester] by ambulance when he suffered a heart attack in January of 2015." (Compare Compl. ¶¶ 35-36, with PAC ¶¶ 37-38.)

III. Procedural History

On July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this action against Defendant Westchester by filing a complaint, which Westchester answered on August 10, 2015. (ECF Nos. 1 & 9.)² On October 22, 2015, a Rule 16 scheduling order was entered allowing amended pleadings until February 1, 2016. (ECF No. 25.) That order was amended on March 7, 2016, extending the timeframe for amending pleadings to June 10, 2016. (ECF No. 34.)

a. Westchester Asserted Plaintiffs Lack Standing

By letter dated May 19, 2016, Westchester requested a pre-motion conference for its anticipated motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief on the basis of standing. (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiffs responded that it was too early to resolve the issues on the pleadings where they had sufficiently alleged standing. (ECF No. 39.) The Court scheduled a conference for June 16, 2016 to address the issues. (See ECF No. 38.) At the conference, Plaintiffs indicated that, if Defendants would not consent, they intended to file the motion now pending before the Court to amend their complaint with additional facts demonstrating their standing to seek injunctive relief. (Minute Entry for June 16, 2016 Conference.)

b. Westchester Deposed Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs Served the Proposed Amendments

Mr. and Mrs. Ortiz sat for depositions on June 28, 2016, and June 30, 2016, respectively. (Def. Decl. in Partial Opp'n to Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl., Exs. E ("A. Ortiz Tr.") and F ("M. Ortiz Tr."), ECF No. 52.) In response to questioning by counsel for Westchester, Mr. Ortiz indicated he did not know why he was taken to Westchester after arriving at Orange to seek treatment for his heart attack. (A. Ortiz Tr. at 21.) When asked if he had any current doctors at Westchester, Mr. Ortiz responded he was "not a sucker"—"it's an hour, hour and a half to come to Westchester. . . . I'm not going to come [to Westchester] for medical care. Additionally, tolls are very expensive. I'm not going to pay tolls unnecessarily." (Id. at 23 ("It's too far for me to come [to Westchester]").) Mrs. Ortiz also indicated that none of her physicians are located at Westchester, but rather are in Middletown, New York, which is significantly closer to Plaintiffs' home. (M. Ortiz Tr. at 52, 59.) Her first and only time accompanying her husband to Westchester was when he was transferred there from Orange via ambulance. (Id. at 40, 59, 97.) Also on June 30, 2016, Plaintiffs' served a copy of their proposed amended complaint on Defendants. (Decl. Andrew Rozynski, Esq., in Supp. Pls. Mot. to Am. Compl., Ex. C.)

* * *

On July 7, 2016, Westchester informed Plaintiffs and the Court that they did not consent to the proposed amended complaint.³ Plaintiffs' motion to amend was fully submitted as of September 2, 2016. (ECF No. 48.)

LEGAL STANDARD ON A MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendments to pleadings, providing for one amendment as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading requires a response, within whichever period of time is shorter: 21 days after the service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after the service of a motion made under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Further amendments are conditioned on either "the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave"—the latter of which should be "freely give[n] . . .when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Nonetheless, "[r]easons for a proper denial of leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, and perhaps most important, the resulting prejudice to the opposing party." State Teachers Ret. Bd. v. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir. 1981) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) ("In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'")).

"The rule in this Circuit has been to allow a party to amend its pleadings in the absence of a showing by the nonmovant of prejudice or bad faith." AEP Energy Servs. Gas Holding Co. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 626 F.3d 699, 725 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344, 350 (2d Cir. 1993)). A...