Helmstetter et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 96 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; fully adopting re 102 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 1/7/2021. (hw)
Case 2:19-cv-02532-KHV-TJJ Document 107 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DAVID HELMSTETTER and
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On June 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed suit against defendants in the District Court of Brown
County, Kansas alleging violations of state and federal law related to plaintiffs’ HomeSaver
Advance loan and subsequent loan modification agreement. See Notice Of Removal (Doc. #1) at
1. On September 3, 2019, defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant to the Court’s
federal question and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, respectively. See
id. This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint
(Doc. #96) filed September 18, 2020 and the Report And Recommendation (Doc. #102) of United
States Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James filed November 16, 2020. For reasons stated below, the
Court overrules plaintiffs’ motion and fully adopts Judge James’s report and recommendation.
On September 11, 2020, Judge James entered a pretrial order elucidating plaintiffs’
16 claims. See Pretrial Order (Doc. #94). The pretrial order specified that within seven days of
filing, plaintiffs could file out of time a motion for leave to amend their complaint. Id. at 29.
Plaintiffs timely filed such a motion and attached a proposed amended complaint. Motion For
Case 2:19-cv-02532-KHV-TJJ Document 107 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 3
Leave To Amend Complaint (Doc. #96). The amended complaint added three claims to those
enumerated in the pretrial order. See Exhibit 1 Proposed Second Amended Complaint attached to
Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint (Doc. #97). Defendants
oppose plaintiffs’ inclusion of the three additional claims.
Memorandum In Opposition
On November 16, 2020, Judge James filed a report and recommendation that plaintiffs’
motion be denied. Report And Recommendation (Doc. #102). Specifically, she found that
plaintiffs’ three additional claims are futile. Id. at 3. On December 7, 2020, plaintiffs timely filed
objections to the report and recommendation. See Objection (Doc. #105).
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s order, the Court must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the magistrate’s order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). If the order is on a dispositive matter, the Court must make “a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made”. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court may
accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendations or findings.
Here, plaintiffs only object to preserve future review by the Tenth Circuit. See Objection
(Doc. #105) at 1 (“The following is for the purpose of preserving any potential issues to avoid
waiver.”). The Court therefore adopts Judge James’ report and recommendation in full and notes
for the record that plaintiffs’ objections are preserved for appellate review.1
IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint
(Doc. #96) filed September 18, 2020 is OVERRULED.
Defendants responded to plaintiff’s objections on the merits. Notice Of
Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Record Objections (Doc. #106). Defendants’ arguments are
also noted for the record.
Case 2:19-cv-02532-KHV-TJJ Document 107 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court fully adopts Judge James’s Report And
Recommendation (Doc. #102).
Dated this 7th day of January, 2021 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
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?