Coppedge et al v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 41

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 30 motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
BRIAN COPPEDGE, et al.,

12

Case No.15-cv-04945-LB

Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: ECF No. 30

16
Brian Coppedge and Maximus Vargas sued PHH Mortgage Corporation and the U.S.

17
18

Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to quiet title on property located in San

19

Francisco, California.1 The plaintiffs added HUD in their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at a

20

time when HUD had an interest in the subject property.2 HUD subsequently quitclaimed its

21

interest to PHH and currently has no interest in the property.3 Because an action to quiet title is

22

intended to “determine ‘all conflicting claims to the property in controversy and to decree to each

23

such interest or estate therein as he may be entitled to[,]’” and because HUD has no such interest,

24

it moves for judgment on the pleadings.4 Newsom v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 714 F. Supp.

25

2d 1000, 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, _ F.3d

26
27
28

1
2
3
4

First Amended Complaint – ECF No. 1-1, Ex. A.
Motion – ECF No. 30 at 2; Opposition – ECF No. 37 at 2.
Motion at 2; Opposition at 2.
See generally Motion.
ORDER (No. 15-cv-04945-LB)

1

_, No. 15-55106, 2016 WL 909163, at *6 n.5 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2016).
The plaintiffs do not dispute that HUD lacks an interest in the subject property or that

2
3

dismissal is appropriate.5 To the contrary, they adopt HUD’s statement of facts.6 The plaintiffs

4

argue, however, dismissal should be without prejudice because there is a good chance HUD will

5

regain an interest in the near future.7 The plaintiffs’ attorney, Mr. Cohen, declares the current

6

property owner informed him it cannot hold the property and is “obligated to convey the property

7

to HUD.”8 The only issue, then, is whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice to later

8

amendment should HUD regain an interest in the subject property.
The court finds dismissal should be without prejudice to later amendment. First, the Federal

10

Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a liberal approach for granting leave to amend. See, e.g., Fed. R.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”); United States v.

12

Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The standard for granting leave to

13

amend is generous.”); Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Serv. Inc.,

14

911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (the court should give leave to amend unless “the pleading

15

could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts”). Second, HUD indicates in its reply

16

that dismissal without prejudice is “precisely the resolution HUD attempted to negotiate with

17

plaintiffs” prior to filing the current motion.9 Although the court is sympathetic to HUD’s efforts

18

in preparing the motion, this does not persuade the court to dismiss HUD with prejudice.

19

The motion is therefore granted without prejudice to later amendment.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: April 14, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
6
7
8
9

See generally Opposition.
Opposition at 2.
Id.; Cohen Decl. – ECF No. 37-1, ¶ 3.
Cohen Decl. ¶ 3.
Reply – ECF No. 38 at 1.
ORDER (No. 15-cv-04945-LB)

2