Chandler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 63

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 59 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and denying 25 Motion to Dismiss as Moot. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10

ROBERT CHANDLER, AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
ROSEMARY S. CHANDLER,
individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION a/k/a FANNIE MAE,

15
Defendants.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-03831 SC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

17
18

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Chandler's

19

("Plaintiff") motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

20

No. 59 ("Mot.").

21

("Opp'n"), 61 ("Reply"), and suitable for determination without

22

oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

23

forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.

24

ECF

The Motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 60

For the reasons set

Plaintiff brings this putative class action to enforce certain

25

regulations concerning the federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage

26

("HECM") program.

27

Bank, N.A. and Federal National Mortgage Association (collectively,

28

"Defendants") violated the regulations by, inter alia, failing to

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Wells Fargo

1

provide borrowers with notice of their rights under the HECM

2

program.

3

action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and violation of

4

California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

5

§ 17200, et seq.

6

In his original complaint, Plaintiff asserted causes of

ECF No. 1 ("Compl.").

Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, but the Court

7

deferred ruling on that motion pending the outcome of the parties'

8

mediation efforts.

9

failed to reach a settlement.

In June 2013, the parties indicated that they
ECF No. 57.

Before the Court could

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

take up Defendants' pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiff requested

11

permission to file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint.

12

Court granted Plaintiff's request, and the instant motion followed.

13

The

Plaintiff's proposed amendments would not add any new causes

14

of action.

15

background facts concerning guidance issued by the U.S. Department

16

of Housing and Urban Development subsequent to the filing of the

17

initial complaint, (2) add additional information about the new

18

forms of notice used by Defendants, and (3) attempt to clarify the

19

relationship between the subject mortgage agreements and the

20

governing federal regulations and statutes.

21

Rather the amendments would (1) add additional

Mot. at 2.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party may

22

amend its pleading as a matter of course within twenty-one days

23

after serving it or twenty-one days after the filing of a

24

responsive pleading or a Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) motion.

25

Thereafter, "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing

26

party's written consent or the court's leave."

27

15(a)(2).

28

leave [to amend] when justice so requires," and the Ninth Circuit

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Rule 15(a)(2) provides that courts should "freely give

2

1

has stressed Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments.

2

Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

3

However, leave need not be granted "where the amendment of the

4

complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought

5

in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue

6

delay."

7

Ascon

Id.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's proposed amendments are

8

futile.

The gravamen of the opposition is that both the Complaint

9

and the proposed amended complaint fail because the HECM

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

regulations do not require the notice that Plaintiff contends is

11

lacking.

12

amendments are futile, but also that Plaintiff's entire action

13

should be dismissed with prejudice.

14

Thus, Defendants are not just arguing that the proposed

The Court is hesitant to turn a motion for leave to amend into

15

a motion to dismiss, and thus it declines to reach the merits of

16

Defendants' substantive arguments.

17

for leave to amend is GRANTED and Defendants' motion to dismiss is

18

DENIED as moot.

19

rejection of the substantive arguments raised in Defendants'

20

opposition to the motion for leave to amend or Defendants' motion

21

to dismiss.

22

(5) days of the signature date of this Order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion

Nothing in this Order should be construed as a

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within five

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: August 1, 2013

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

3