Yadav-Ranjan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 139

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE DEFENDANT QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION. Re: Dkt. No. 118 . Yadav-Ranjan must file response by 6/15/2018. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 6/11/2018. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RANI YADAV-RANJAN,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

v.
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03939 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE COURT SHOULD NOT
STRIKE DEFENDANT QUALITY
LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION
Re: Dkt. No. 118

15
16

The second amended complaint contains allegations and claims against unserved

17

defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation. Quality has not appeared in this action,

18

though in previous iterations of the complaint, plaintiff Yadav-Ranjan included allegations

19

regarding Quality. In the second amended complaint, Yadav-Ranjan brings breach of

20

contract, Homeowner Bill of Rights, fraud and deceit, RESPA, and slander of title claims

21

against Quality. But in none of these claims has Yadav-Ranjan made any substantive

22

factual allegations as to Quality’s purported wrongdoing. Quality always appears as a last

23

party in the string-cite of defendants that allegedly harmed Yadav-Ranjan.

24

Moreover, the Court reminds Yadav-Ranjan that the deadline to add parties and

25

claims was January 31, 2018. Dkt. No. 67. In the Court’s order on the motions to dismiss

26

the first amended complaint, the Court told Yadav-Ranjan that she could not add parties

27

absent leave of Court. Dkt. No. 88 at 16. The motion for leave to file the second amended

28

complaint made no reference to the addition of Quality Loan Service Corporation as a
Case No. 17-cv-03939 NC

1

defendant. Attorney Daniel P. White’s declaration attesting to the changes made from the

2

first amended complaint to the second amended complaint also failed to mention the

3

addition of Quality Loan Service Corporation as a defendant. Dkt. No. 98-3.

4

Disturbingly, the redlines that purportedly showed the changes from the first amended

5

complaint to the second amended complaint did not redline the addition of a party or the

6

additional allegations regarding Quality.

7

Therefore, the Court is confused by the silent addition of Quality Loan Service

8

Corporation to the second amended complaint, and is concerned that Yadav-Ranjan was

9

attempting to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes by omitting this change from its redlines
and its motion. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Yadav-Ranjan to file a response to this

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

motion explaining why Quality Loan Service Corporation’s presence as a defendant did

12

not appear in its motion for leave, or attorney White’s declaration in support of the second

13

amended complaint. Moreover, Yadav-Ranjan must show cause why the Court should not

14

dismiss Quality as a new defendant at this late juncture in the proceedings. This response

15

must be filed with the Court by June 15, 2018.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: June 11, 2018

20

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 17-cv-03939 NC

2