Marquette v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 16

ORDER: The Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is granted. (Doc. 14 ). Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint, as set forth in Exhibit A of the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 14 -1 at 12-43), with ten (10) days from the date this Order is filed. Defendants shall respond to the First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date the First Amended Complaint is re-filed. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/3/2014. (mdc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SCOTT MARQUETTE, CASE NO. 13cv2719-WQH (JMA) 11 Order 17 Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., an entity of unknown form; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION S/A-3 DAY ARC125949, an entity of unknown form; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 110, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint 21 filed by Plaintiff Scott Marquette. (ECF No. 14). 22 I. Background 23 On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff Scott Marquette initiated this action by filing 24 a Complaint in this Court. (ECF No. 1). On March 3, 2014, Defendants Bank of 25 America, N.A. (“Bank of America”), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation S/A-3 26 day ARC-125949 (“Freddie Mac”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 27 (“MERS”) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 9). On July 30, 2014, 28 the Court granted the motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. (ECF No. -1- 13cv2719-WQH (JMA) 1 13). The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file a motion for leave to amend the 2 complaint. 3 On August 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to Amend the 4 Complaint. (ECF No. 14). On September 29, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition. 5 (ECF No. 15). 6 II. Contentions of the Parties 7 Plaintiff contends that Defendants will suffer no prejudice from amendment 8 because this action is in the early stages of litigation, discovery has not commenced, and 9 the proposed first amended complaint contains no new causes of action. Plaintiff 10 contends that the motion is brought within the time ordered by the Court. Finally, 11 Plaintiff contends that amendment would not be futile because the proposed first 12 amended complaint alleges additional facts that address the pleading deficiencies 13 identified in the Court’s July 30, 2014 Order. 14 Defendants contend that they will suffer prejudice if amendment is granted 15 because the proposed first amended complaint is based on “identical allegations that 16 cannot support any valid cause of action” and would require Defendants to “be forced 17 to file yet another motion to dismiss.” (ECF No. 15 at 26). Defendant argues that there 18 was undue delay in filing the present motion because the proposed first amended 19 complaint does not contain any additional material allegations. Finally, Defendant 20 contends that amendment would be futile because the single additional factual 21 allegation in the proposed first amended complaint does not cure Plaintiff’s previous 22 failure to state a claim. 23 III. Discussion 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given 25 when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with 26 extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 27 Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court 28 considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing -2- 13cv2719-WQH (JMA) 1 party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not 2 all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice 3 to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 4 1052 (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing 5 prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 6 “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there 7 exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence 8 Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 9 After review of the motion, the proposed first amended complaint, and the filings 10 of the parties, the Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong 11 showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor 12 of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Plaintiff did not 13 unduly delay bringing the present motion. The Court’s July 30, 2014 Order stated that 14 Plaintiff had thirty days to file a motion for leave to amend; Plaintiff did so twenty-nine 15 days later on August 29, 2014. At this stage of the proceedings, Defendant would not 16 be prejudiced if Plaintiff were given a second chance to state a claim. The Court will 17 defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed first amended 18 complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212 19 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of the 20 challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is 21 granted and the amended pleading is filed.”). 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // -3- 13cv2719-WQH (JMA) 1 IV. Conclusion 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint 3 is GRANTED. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint, as set 4 forth in Exhibit A of the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 14-1 at 5 12-43), with ten (10) days from the date this Order is filed. Defendants shall respond 6 to the First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date the First 7 Amended Complaint is re-filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 8 DATED: October 3, 2014 9 10 WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- 13cv2719-WQH (JMA)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?