Pohl, et al v. US Bank N.A., et al

Filing 137

MINUTE ORDER granting 118 Motion for Leave to Amend Answers and Affirmative Defenses, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/21/2015.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02292-PAB-MJW
STANLEY M. POHL and
ZINAIDA Q. POHL,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
US BANK N.A. individually in its corporate capacity;
US BANK, as trustee for Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Back
Certificates Series 2007-4;
MERS, a division of MERSCORP INC.,
DEBRA JOHNSON, Public Trustee of Denver County; and
all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action.
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend Answers and
Affirmative Defenses (Docket No. 118), filed by defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee
for Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Asset-Backed Certificates Series
2007-4, U.S. Bank, N.A., individually, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc., is granted. The Tendered U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Merrill Lynch First
Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Asset-Back Certificates Series 2007-4'S Second
Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 118-1) is accepted
for filing as of the date of this Minute Order.
The motion is made after the deadline for amendment of pleadings, and thus
this court has applied the following analysis in deciding whether to allow the
amendments:
Where, as here, a motion to amend the pleadings . . . is filed after the
scheduling order deadline, a “two-step analysis” is required. Once a
scheduling order’s deadline for amendment has passed, a movant must first
demonstrate to the court that it has “good cause” for seeking modification of
the scheduling deadline under Rule 16(b). If the movant satisfies Rule 16(b)’s
“good cause” standard, it must then pass the requirements for amendment
under Rule 15(a) . . . .
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard is much different than the more lenient

2
standard contained in Rule 15(a). Rule 16(b) does not focus on the bad faith
of the movant, or the prejudice to the opposing party. Rather, it focuses on
the diligence of the party seeking leave to modify the scheduling order to
permit the proposed amendment. Properly construed, “good cause” means
that the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s diligent efforts.
In other words, this court may “modify the schedule on a showing of good
cause if [the deadline] cannot be met despite the diligence of the party
seeking the extension.” Carelessness is not compatible with a finding of
diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.

Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 667, 668 (D. Colo. 2001) (quotations
and citations omitted). Substantially for the reasons stated in the Reply (Docket No.
126), this court finds that the moving defendants have satisfied this first step in the
analysis and have established good cause to extend the deadline within which they
may seek leave to amend their answer.
The second step is consideration of whether the moving defendants have
satisfied the standard for amendment of pleadings required under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a):
Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so
requires.” Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing
of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory
motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or
futility of amendment.

Id. at 669 (citation omitted). Based upon this standard, and substantially for the
reasons stated in the Reply (Docket No. 126), this court finds that the proposed
amendment should be permitted. The court notes that the discovery deadline was
recently amended up to and including March 23, 2016, for a limited purpose.
(Docket No. 136). In the event the parties believe that additional discovery is
warranted in light of these amendments, they may move to reopen discovery for a
reasonable period and to alter any other deadlines. Thus, any prejudice that might
arise from these amendments is capable of being cured.
Date: December 21, 2015