Caruthers v. Chase Home Finance LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. The Clerk shall terminate this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/10/11.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Chase Home Finance LLC, a Delaware) Limited Liability Company; Mortgage) Electronic Registration systems, Inc., a) ) Delaware Corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) Debra A. Caruthers, an individual, No. CV-10-8248-PCT-GMS ORDER 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended 18 Complaint (Doc. 18). The Court has reviewed the proposed first amended complaint and 19 determines that it would be futile in light of Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 20 ___F3d___, 2011 WL 3911031 at *5 (9th Cir. September 7, 2011), and the previous 21 decisions cited in the Court’s Order dismissing the original Complaint (Doc. 17). The 22 amended complaint seeks to assert that MERS cannot be the agent of the holder of the note 23 or its assignee. This is a legal assertion which the Court need not accept as true in ruling on 24 a motion for summary judgment. As well, as is set forth in the Cervantes decision, such a 25 position has been impliedly if not expressly rejected. Further, to the extent that the amended 26 complaint seeks to assert that because the original note and mortgage were assigned to an 27 investment security, and Plaintiff does not know who the new holders of the beneficial 28 interest are and thus MERS cannot be acting on their behalf, Cervantes also puts such claims 1 to rest. See Cervantes at *5 (“[W]hile the plaintiffs indicate that MERS was used to hide 2 who owned the loan, the deed states that the loan or a partial interest in it ‘can be sold one 3 or more times without prior notice to Borrower’. . . . By signing the deed[] of trust, the 4 plaintiff[] agreed to the terms and [was] on notice of the contents.”). 5 As a result, the proposed amendment both fails to cure the deficiencies of the previous 6 complaint and is futile. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1034 7 (9th Circ. 2008). Because Plaintiff has already been given leave to amend her complaint, 8 leave to amend is not again granted and her claims are dismissed with prejudice. Sisseton- 9 Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of Lake Traverse Indian Reservation, North Dakota and South Dakota 10 v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that discretion to dismiss without 11 leave to amend is particularly strong where leave to amend has been previously granted). 12 The first amended complaint is not materially different from the original Complaint. 13 Therefore, the Motion for Leave to Amend is denied and further leave to amend will not be 14 granted. 15 16 17 18 19 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied (Doc. 18). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this action with prejudice. DATED this 10th day of November, 2011. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?