Crossfirst Bank et al v. Vieste SPE LLC et al

Filing 208

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 189 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their Third Amended Complaint no later than 7 days from the issuance of this order. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/17/2022. (RMV)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Crossfirst Bank, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01637-PHX-DLR

Vieste SPE LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint

16

(“TAC”) (Doc. 189), which is fully briefed (Docs. 196-200). For the following reasons,

17

the motion is granted.1

18

I. Background

19

This action arises from Plaintiffs’ purchase of $28,935,000 in industrial

20

development bonds (“Bonds”) described in Defendants’ Official Statement (“OS”) dated

21

April 17, 2013. Originally, the complaint alleged Arizona Securities Act (“ASA”) claims,

22

which the Court dismissed, and Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that alleged

23

common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. (Docs. 1-

24

1, 85, 112.) Although the original ASA claims were alleged as a class action, the common

25

law claims added in the SAC were not so alleged. (Doc. 113.)

26

Plaintiffs then sought leave to file a third amended complaint, asserting the common

27
1

28

Oral argument is denied because the motions are adequately briefed and oral
argument will not help the Court resolve the issues presented. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);
LRCiv. 7.2(f).

1

law claims on behalf of a putative class based on a fraud-on-the-market theory. (Doc. 122.)

2

The Court denied leave to amend because Arizona does not recognize the fraud-on-the-

3

market theory of presumed reliance for common law fraud claims. (Doc. 137.)

4

Not long after, Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC. (Doc. 139.) The Court

5

granted and denied the motion in part, ruling that individuals who purchased Bonds and

6

actually read and relied on the OS have actionable common law claims. (Doc. 170.)

7

Plaintiffs now seek leave to file a TAC to add two new individual plaintiffs under those

8

actionable common law claims and pursue those claims on a class basis. (Doc. 189 at 2.)

9

II. Legal Standard

10

Leave to amend should be given freely “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

15(a)(2). When assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to amend, the court considers

12

factors such as “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4)

13

futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.”

14

Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing the so-called

15

“Foman factors”). “Generally, this determination should be performed with all inferences

16

in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th

17

Cir. 1999). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors,

18

there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”

19

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

III. Discussion

21

A. The Class Action Basis

22

Plaintiffs TAC asserts class action claims based on the common law fraud and

23

negligent representation claims (Doc. 189-1). There is no bad faith or undue delay;

24

Plaintiffs have sought to assert class action claims since the beginning of this lawsuit. Their

25

delay is attributable to having to adjust based on adverse rulings from this Court. Of course,

26

class action might expose Defendants to greater liability, but this does not count as

27

prejudice. In re Glacier Bay, 746 F. Supp. 1379, 1391 (D. Alaska 1990). Besides, they

28

have been on notice from the beginning that Plaintiffs sought to bring class action claims.

-2-

1

This weakens any argument for prejudice.

2

Now, as to futility. “[A] proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be

3

proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient

4

claim or defense.” Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.1997)

5

(alteration in original) (quoting Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th

6

Cir.1988)). This is, more or less, the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Aldan v. World Corp., 267

7

F.R.D. 346, 361 (D. N. Mar. I. 2010); see, e.g., Sweaney, 119 F.3d at 1393.

8

Plaintiffs class action claims satisfy Rule 12(b)(6) and are thus not futile.

9

Defendants would have this Court deny leave to add the class action allegations on the

10

argument that Plaintiffs would fail class certification under Rule 23. But it is inappropriate

11

to resolve the fitness of claims for class certification at this stage in the litigation. Avina v.

12

Patenaude & Felix, APC, No. 20-CV-0166-BAS-MDD, 2021 WL 5990037, at *14 (S.D.

13

Cal. Dec. 17, 2021) (ruling that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is not the

14

appropriate vehicle to attack the elements of class certification). Although district courts

15

enjoy particularly broad discretion in denying leave to amend when a plaintiff has

16

previously filed an amended complaint, Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1133

17

(9th Cir. 2013), on balance, the factors favor granting leave to amend to add class action

18

claims.

19

B. The Proposed Individual Plaintiffs

20

Plaintiffs seek leave to add two new plaintiffs under the fraud, aiding and abetting

21

fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims.

22

1. Bad Faith & Undue Delay

23

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs, in bad faith, unduly delayed seeking to add new

24

plaintiffs to the common law claims. The Court disagrees. The parties filed their required

25

Rule 26(f) Joint Proposed Discovery Order on June 22, 2021, which, in relevant part, noted

26

that

27
28

Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants’ initial disclosure of
documents and an early round of subpoenas to third parties will
reveal additional parties in the bond transaction who are liable
because they knew information demonstrating that there were
-3-

misstatements in, and omissions from, the Official Statement.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs anticipate it may be necessary to add
more individual plaintiffs—bond purchasers who received and
relied on the Official Statement—to the complaint.

1
2
3
4

(Doc. 188 at 4-5.) Just six days later, Plaintiffs filed the motion for leave to amend the

5

complaint to add two individual plaintiffs (Doc. 189), and two days after that, the Court

6

issued the Scheduling Order, which set the deadline to join parties for September 1, 2021

7

(Doc. 192 at 1). The Court sees no undue delay or bad faith in Plaintiff’s attempt to join

8

parties before the deadline imposed by the Scheduling Order.
2. Prejudice to the Opposing Party

9
10

Nor does the Court see prejudice here. Plaintiffs are not raising new individual

11

claims; the two proposed plaintiffs assert the same claims as the others. The discovery

12

process, though underway, is malleable, and to the extent discovery deadlines need

13

amending, the parties may seek an extension as provided in the Scheduling Order. (Doc.

14

192.)

15

3. Futility

16

Even assuming, as Defendants argue, that Plaintiff seeks to add new plaintiffs

17

outside the limitations period, the amendment is not futile because the new parties relate

18

back to the filing of the original complaint. An amended complaint adding a new plaintiff

19

relates back where “1) the original complaint gave the defendant adequate notice of the

20

claims of the newly proposed plaintiff; 2) the relation back does not unfairly prejudice the

21

defendant; and 3) there is an identity of interests between the original and newly proposed

22

plaintiff.” Immigrant Assistance Project of Los Angeles Cnty. Fed’n of Lab. (AFL-CIO) v.

23

I.N.S., 306 F.3d 842, 857 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Rosenbaum v. Syntex Corp., 95 F.3d

24

922, 935 (9th Cir. 1996).

25

The elements are satisfied here. The original complaint gave notice to Defendants

26

of claims arising out of the purchase of bonds in reliance on the OS, which was allegedly

27

drafted in part by Defendants. Defendants, while they have already answered the second

28

amended complaint, are not unduly prejudiced by having to answer a third amended

-4-

1

complaint cabined to the same claims. Besides, as noted above, Defendants were on notice

2

that Plaintiffs anticipated adding new claims, and the discovery deadlines may be extended

3

as provided in the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 192.)

4
5

4. Previous Amendments
Plaintiffs have amended their complaint before.

Nevertheless, the Court’s

6

Scheduling Order contemplated that the parties might join other parties before September

7

1, 2021. Thus, this factor, while it weighs against amendment, does so weakly.

8
9

5. Balancing the Factors
On balance, all but the fifth factor favor granting leave to amend, the Court finds it

10

appropriate to allow Plaintiffs to add the new individual plaintiffs.

11

IV. Conclusion

12
13

For both the class allegations and the two new individual plaintiffs, the Foman
factors counsel toward granting leave to amend. Therefore,

14

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 189) is

15

GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their Third Amended Complaint no later than 7 days from

16

the issuance of this order.

17

Dated this 17th day of February, 2022.

18
19
20
21
22

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-