Chen et al v. PMC Bancorp et al

Filing 56

ORDER re Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings and Ex Parte Application to Hear Motions Together. It is Hereby Ordered that the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is Granted 38 . No later than fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is filed, Plaintiffs shall file the proposed Second Amended Complaint which is attached to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings are Denied 30 , 33 . The Ex Parte Application to Hear Motions Together is Denied as Moot 39 . Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/28/10. (lao)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YUEH CHEN and CHEN C. WU, individuals, vs. PMC BANCORP, a California corporation, 01HOMELOAN, ONE WEST BANK, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, NDEX WEST, LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 20, HAYES, Judge: The matters before the Court are the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings"), filed by Defendants OneWest Bank, NDEX West, LLC, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("OneWest Defendants") (Doc. # 30); the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings"), filed by Defendant PMC Bancorp ("PMC") (Doc. # 33); the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs Yueh Chen and Chen C. Wu (Doc. # 38); and the Ex Parte Application to Hear Motions Together, filed by Plaintiffs (Doc. # 39). Background On December 3, 2009, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint in this Court. (Doc. # 1). The Complaint asserted various causes of action related to a loan transaction. -109cv2704-WQH-BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 09cv2704-WQH-BLM ORDER

Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

1

On February 26, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint "as a matter of

2 course" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (Doc. # 24). 3 On March 17, 2010, the OneWest Defendants filed their Motion for Judgment on the

4 Pleadings. (Doc. # 30). 5 6 On April 8, 2010, PMC filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. # 33). On April 20, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

7 Complaint (Doc. # 38), and the Ex Parte Application to Hear Motions Together (Doc. # 39). 8 Plaintiffs contend that "[f]urther auditing of Plaintiff's loan documents and copies of 9 Documents on file in Defendant's [Request for Judicial Notice] have allowed Plaintiff to more 10 accurately determine and state the roles of the individual Defendants in the dispute and to 11 discover[] new evidence and allege new, legitimate claims for relief that Plaintiffs should be 12 allowed to assert against the Defendants." (Doc. # 38-1 at 4). Plaintiffs attached a proposed 13 second amended complaint to the Motion. (Doc. # 38-2). 14 On April 21, 2010, the OneWest Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion for Leave

15 to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 41). On May 10, 2010, PMC filed an 16 opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 51). 17 Defendants contend: the proposed amendments are futile (Doc. # 41 at 2; Doc. # 51 at 3); 18 Plaintiffs "engaged in bad faith by filing a motion [for leave to amend] without any supporting 19 evidence" (Doc. # 41 at 2); and Plaintiffs "have prejudiced Defendants by causing them to 20 unnecessarily file 2 motions for judgment on the pleadings" (id.). Defendants request that the 21 Court condition leave to amend on Plaintiffs' payment of Defendants' attorney fees for filing 22 the motions for judgment on the pleadings. PMC contends: "[C]onsidering the pleading of 23 additional claims, the court should dispose of the caps upon requests for admissions imposed 24 by local rules, especially since PMC has already served written discovery." (Doc. # 51 at 4). 25 26 Discussion Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend "be freely

27 given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "This policy is to be applied with 28 extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. -209cv2704-WQH-BLM

1 2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court 2 offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant a motion to 3 amend under Rule 15(a): 4 5 6 In the absence of any apparent or declared reason­such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.­the leave sought should, as the rules require, be `freely given.'

7 Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 8 2004) (citing Forman factors). 9 "Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held,

10 it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight." 11 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 12 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). "The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice." 13 DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the 14 remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting 15 leave to amend." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 16 After reviewing the proposed second amended complaint and considering the

17 submissions of the parties, the Court finds that the Motion for Leave to Amend should be 18 granted. Any prejudice to Defendants in having to file the motions for judgment on the 19 pleadings is not sufficient to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting 20 leave to amend. Defendants' requests for costs or sanctions are denied without prejudice to 21 renew in the event Plaintiffs again seek leave to amend. PMC's request "for dispos[al] of the 22 caps upon requests for admissions imposed by local rules" (Doc. # 51 at 4) may be raised at 23 an appropriate time before the Magistrate Judge. 24 Because Plaintiffs have been granted leave to file a second amended complaint, the

25 Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, which address the First Amended Complaint, are 26 denied. 27 // 28 // -309cv2704-WQH-BLM

1 2

Conclusion IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

3 Complaint is granted. (Doc. # 38). No later than fourteen (14) days from the date this Order 4 is filed, Plaintiffs shall file the proposed second amended complaint which is attached to the 5 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. 6 The Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings are denied. (Doc. # 30, 33). The Ex Parte

7 Application to Hear Motions Together is denied as moot. (Doc. # 39). 8 DATED: May 28, 2010 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -409cv2704-WQH-BLM

WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge