Gooden v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., et al.,

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/19/13 GRANTING 50 Motion to Amend the Complaint. The 50 proposed amended complaint attached as Exhibit A to Eric J. Bueschers declaration (Doc. #50-1) is deemed filed as of the date of this Order. Defendant is ORDERED to file its responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint within 20 days of this Order. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHEILA GOODEN,

12

15

2:11-cv-2595-JAM-DAD

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a
Virginia Corporation,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant.

16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Sheila Gooden’s

18

(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and For Leave to

19

File an Amended Complaint (Doc. #50).1

20

Mortgage, Inc.2 (“Defendant”) opposes the motion (Doc. #55).

Defendant Suntrust

21
I.

22

In this putative class action, Plaintiff alleges that she

23
24

BACKGROUND

maintained adequate hazard and flood insurance on her property,

25
26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
originally scheduled for June 5, 2013.
2
The Court previously dismissed all claims against Defendant
Suntrust Banks, Inc. (Doc. #18).
1

1

but Defendant improperly force placed additional flood and hazard

2

insurance on her home and improperly billed her for the premiums.

3

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) Violation

4

of Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) (Hazard Insurance), 15 U.S.C.

5

§ 1601; (2) Violation of TILA (Flood Insurance), 15 U.S.C.

6

§ 1601; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code

7

§ 2955.5; (5) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law

8

(“UCL”) (Hazard Insurance), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and

9

(6) Violations of California Unfair Competition Law (Flood

10

Insurance), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

11

complaint contains allegations related to 1) a nationwide class

12

for the TILA Hazard Insurance claim (the “nationwide hazard

13

class”), 2) a California subclass for the third, fourth, and

14

fifth causes of action (the “California hazard subclass”), and

15

3) a California subclass for the second and sixth causes of

16

action (the “California flood subclass”).

17

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal causes of action pursuant

18

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the related state law claims pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 1367.

20

Plaintiff’s

The Court has

In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her

21

complaint in addition to modification of the amendment deadline

22

in the current scheduling order.

23

was issued by the Court on August 30, 2012 (Doc. #38) and

24

modified pursuant to the parties’ stipulation on April 3, 2013

25

(Doc. #54).

26

Plaintiff’s class certification motion from April 5, 2013 to

27

June 5, 2013.

28

reply, and the hearing date were similarly extended.

The current scheduling order

The April order extended the deadline for

The deadline for Defendant’s opposition, the

2

The

1

discovery deadline was extended from December 18, 2013 to

2

February 19, 2014.

3

July 14, 2014.

4

30, 2012, stated that amendments to pleadings or joinder of

5

parties would not be permitted without a showing of good cause,

6

and that portion of the order was not modified.

7

The trial date was moved from May 12, 2014 to

The original scheduling order, issued on August

For purposes of the current motion, the amendments plaintiff

8

seeks are 1) to expand the California hazard subclass to a

9

nationwide class; 2) expand the California flood insurance

10

subclass to a nationwide class; and 3) add Michelle Hall to this

11

suit as a representative plaintiff.

12
13
14
15
16

II.
A.

OPINION

Legal Standard
1.

Modification of Scheduling Order

Once a scheduling order is in place, a party seeking to

17

modify that scheduling order must show good cause.

Fed. R. Civ.

18

P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

19

(9th Cir. 2002).

20

moving party shows it was diligent, but that it is nevertheless

21

unable to reasonably comply with the scheduling order without

22

modification.

23

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

24

prejudice to the party opposing modification might supply

25

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is

26

upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”

27

(citing Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141

28

(D. Me. 1985)).

The good cause standard is satisfied when the

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d
“Although the existence or degree of

3

Id.

1
2
3

2.

Leave to Amend the Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “a

4

party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s

5

written consent or the court’s leave.

The court should freely

6

give leave when justice so requires.”

The policy favoring

7

amendment “is to be applied with extreme liberality.”

8

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.

9

1990).

Morongo

“The four factors commonly used to determine the

10

propriety of a motion for leave to amend are bad faith, undue

11

delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of

12

amendment.”

13

56 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

14

(1962); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th

15

Cir. 1987)).

16

B.

17
18

Abels v. JBC Legal Group, P.C., 229 F.R.D. 152, 155–

Discussion
1.

Modifying the Scheduling Order

Plaintiff argues that there is good cause to modify the

19

scheduling order because information produced during discovery

20

changed her understanding of this litigation and gave her a

21

proper basis upon which to expand the scope of this suit.

22

Plaintiff claims that when the complaint in this action was first

23

filed, she was unaware of how Defendant tracked flood zones for

24

its borrowers and how it determined when to force place flood

25

insurance.

26

filed the original complaint that tracking this information

27

nationally would be unmanageable, so she limited the flood

28

insurance class to California.

Plaintiff claims that she was concerned when she

Plaintiff explains that in
4

1

depositions conducted during December 2012, she learned that

2

Defendant uses the same vendor and methods to track flood zones

3

nationwide and in March 2013 she received reports generated by

4

that vendor.

5

on a national basis is manageable.

6

address what specific information related to the hazard insurance

7

class she discovered after the amendment cutoff, but she

8

generally argues, “Through the December 2012 depositions, and

9

review of the loan files of other SunTrust borrowers from around

As a result, she determined that tracking borrowers
Plaintiff does not directly

10

the country, it became apparent that SunTrust has breached its

11

contracts with homeowners around the county, and that those

12

breaches can be easily proven on a class-wide basis using

13

SunTrust’s own documents.”

14

Reply (Doc. #58) at 7.

Defendant opposes the motion generally on the grounds that

15

Plaintiff has not shown good cause sufficient to justify amending

16

the scheduling order.

17

class, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not pointed to any

18

specific information she obtained after the amendment deadline

19

that supports expanding the class from California to nationwide.

20

Defendant also points out that if Plaintiff was able to allege a

21

nationwide TILA class with respect to hazard insurance, she

22

should have been able to do the same with respect to her breach

23

of contract claim.

24

breach of contract class nationally will require the application

25

of 50 different statutes of limitation, making this litigation

26

impossibly complicated.

27

class, Defendant argues that since Plaintiff has been conducting

28

discovery on a nationwide basis all along, it is clear that she

With respect to the hazard insurance

Defendant also argues that expanding the

With respect to the flood insurance

5

1

was aware that she could allege a nationwide class well before

2

the amendment deadline.

3

plaintiff, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion does not show

4

good cause to add her.

5

discovered by Plaintiff improperly through the discovery process,

6

something which Plaintiff represented to the Court she would not

7

do.

8

certification briefing schedule would have to be modified if Ms.

9

Hall were added in order to conduct discovery.

10

In opposition to adding Ms. Hall as a

Defendant also argues that Ms. Hall was

Finally, Defendant contends that the recently modified class

In reply, Plaintiff argues that the procedural history and

11

current posture of this case favor granting the motion.

12

Plaintiff points out that the trial date for this case is over

13

one year away in July 2014.

14

parties’ recent stipulation modifying the certification briefing

15

schedule, they agreed that the new schedule provided sufficient

16

time for discovery related to Ms. Hall in the event she was added

17

as a plaintiff (Doc. #53, 2:24-27).

18

that discovery did not proceed in earnest until December 2012 due

19

to Defendant’s unsuccessful attempt to settle Plaintiff’s claim

20

with her Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee, which resulted in a stay

21

of this case from June to August 2012 (Doc.

22

## 32, 35-36).

23

Plaintiff also notes that in the

Finally, Plaintiff argues

Based on the procedural posture of this case, the Court

24

finds that Plaintiff diligently pursued her claims and that the

25

amendment deadline in the scheduling order should be modified.

26

Defendant’s argument does suggest that Plaintiff contemplated a

27

national expansion of this case well before the amendment

28

deadline, but the pleading standard in Federal Rule of Civil
6

1

Procedure 8 and the requirements of Rule 11 indicate that a

2

plaintiff must have a sufficient basis for making allegations in

3

a complaint.

4

required Plaintiff to advance claims before she had a factual

5

basis for doing so or was unsure if the claims would be a

6

manageable addition to the lawsuit.

7

purposes of this motion that she learned about Defendant’s

8

national practices with respect to flood and hazard insurance in

9

December 2012 and received documentary evidence of the same in

It would be accordingly inconsistent if Rule 16

Plaintiff represents for

10

March 2013.

This motion was filed shortly after.

It is also

11

notable that Defendant’s counsel’s declaration (Doc. #55-1) is

12

consistent, in part, with Plaintiff’s position.

13

counsel declares that Plaintiff did not indicate until January

14

2013 that she was considering an amendment, which support’s

15

Plaintiff’s claim that the necessary information was first

16

obtained in the December 2012 depositions.

17

was stayed and Plaintiff lost nearly two months of potential

18

discovery time because of the bankruptcy proceeding.

19

timeline shows sufficient diligence to justify modifying the

20

scheduling order.

Defendant’s

Finally, this case

This

21

The Court’s finding is also bolstered by the parties’

22

agreement to extend nearly every other important deadline in the

23

scheduling order.

24

is continuing until February 2014.

25

if Ms. Hall is added to this case, there will be time to conduct

26

discovery with regard to her before Defendant’s opposition to

Trial is still over a year away, and discovery

27
28
7

Defendant already agreed that

1

class certification is due.

2

early stages, and modifying the scheduling order to allow an

3

amended complaint at this time is appropriate.

4

Defendant’s argument concerning the complexity of this litigation

5

and various statutes of limitation are better raised at the class

6

certification phase because the commonality of legal issues

7

amongst class members is not relevant to the present motion.

8

Plaintiff discovered Ms. Hall and her claims is similarly

9

irrelevant.

10
11
12

This litigation is still in its

Finally,

How

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order is

therefore granted.
2.

Leave to Amend

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

13

the complaint should be denied because Defendant would be

14

prejudiced by the impending deadlines related to Plaintiff’s

15

class certification motion.

16

already agreed that the extended briefing schedule for the class

17

certification motion provides sufficient time to conduct

18

discovery with respect to Plaintiff’s proposed amendments.

19

is accordingly no reason to deny Plaintiff’s motion, especially

20

in light of the liberal policy in favor of allowing amendments.

21

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is therefore granted.

As discussed above, Defendant has

There

22
23
24
25

III. ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

The proposed amended

26

complaint attached as Exhibit A to Eric J. Buescher’s declaration

27

(Doc. #50-1) is deemed filed as of the date of this Order.

28

Defendant is ordered to file its responsive pleading to the
8

1

Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order.3

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2013

4

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

The hearing calendared for August 7, 2013 on Defendant’s
pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings directed at
Plaintiff’s original complaint is vacated as moot.
9