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)

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-