Thomason v. One West Bank, FSB, Indy Mac Bank (MAG+)

Filing 112

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/22/2017. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN THOMASON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ONE WEST BANK, FSB,
et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12cv604-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff

Steven

Thomason

filed

this

lawsuit

against the defendant lenders, mortgage holders, and
loan servicers, asserting a variety of federal claims
related

to

foreclosure.
the

a

home

loan

and

his

efforts

to

avoid

This lawsuit is now before the court on

recommendation

of

the

United

States

Magistrate

Judge that defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s
case

be

granted

in

part

and

denied

in

part;

that

plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint be
denied; that defendant Eva Bank’s motion to strike an
affidavit be granted; and that plaintiff’s motion for

leave

to

file

an

affidavit

and

motion

judgment be denied without prejudice.
court

are

all

recommendation.
review

of

objections
judge’s

the

parties’
After

record,

should

be

an
the

objections

independent
court

summary

Also before the
to

and

and

the

adopted,

with

the

the

de

concludes

overruled

recommendation

for

novo

that

the

magistrate
following

exceptions and caveats.
First,
current

record,

defendants’
summary

because
the

the

court

objections

judgment.

defendants’

of

confusing
is

would

of

be

Accordingly,

objections

with

nature

the

better
the

leave

opinion
taken

court
to

of

the
that

up

on

overrules

renew

their

arguments on summary judgment.
Second, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s
application of a two-year statute of limitations to his
claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1982, and argues that
the proper statute of limitations is four years under
42 U.S.C. § 1658.

See Baker v. Birmingham Board of

Education, 531 F.3d 1336, at 1338 (11th Cir. 2008);
2

Jones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 382
(2004); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298,
312 (1994).

As this issue has not been fully briefed

by the parties, the court will leave the issue for
resolution on summary judgment and will overrule the
part of the recommendation dismissing plaintiff’s §§
1981 & 1982 claims prior to March 3, 2013.
Finally, the court pauses to explain its reason for
overruling plaintiff’s objection to the denial of leave
to amend the complaint.

Motions to amend should be

liberally granted in the interests of justice.
Civ.

P.

15(a)(2).

The

proposed

amended

Fed. R.
complaint

plaintiff submitted was much the same as his earlier
amended complaint but had attached to it many documents
that flesh out his claims.

Plaintiff apparently sought

to amend the complaint in response to the arguments in
one

of

the

motions

to

dismiss

that

he

had

not

sufficiently alleged the relevant facts about certain
critical documents (which he attached as exhibits to
the

proposed

amended

complaint)
3

and

that

he

had not clearly alleged which defendants had violated
which laws.
Having reviewed the proposed amended complaint and
the documents attached to it, the court concludes that
allowing

plaintiff

to

amend

his

complaint

would

not

change its decision on the report and recommendation
and

would

meritorious

not

change

claims

the

scope

plaintiff

can

of

the

potentially

litigate.

As

the

court does not sustain the defense objections to which
plaintiff’s amended complaint sought to respond, the
amendment is unnecessary.

Furthermore, plaintiff will

be allowed to submit the documents he attached to the
proposed amended complaint as evidence of his claims as
the litigation proceeds.

For these reasons, the court

overrules the objection and adopts the recommendation
that the motion to amend be denied without prejudice.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 22nd day of March, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE