Lorenz v. JPMorgan Chase

Filing 37

ORDER denying 28 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 05/28/14. (BJS) (cc: Teresa Lorenz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
TERESA LORENZ,

Case No. 13-CV-0986 (PJS/SER)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

JPMORGAN CHASE,
Defendant.

Teresa Lorenz, pro se.
Calvin P. Hoffman, Phillip J. Ashfield, and Timothy M. Kelley, STINSON LEONARD
STREET LLP, for defendant.
In a two-count complaint, plaintiff Teresa Lorenz alleged that defendant JPMorgan Chase
(“JPMorgan”) negligently made false representations to her and violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. This matter is before the Court on Lorenz’s motion to
amend her complaint. See ECF No. 28. Lorenz seeks to fundamentally transform her lawsuit by
adding several additional defendants and six additional causes of action. Lorenz’s motion is
denied for two reasons.
First, Lorenz filed her motion to amend more than four months after the deadline set in
the pretrial scheduling order for bringing such motions. See ECF No. 20 at 1 (requiring that any
motions to amend the pleadings be filed no later than December 1, 2013). A scheduling order
“may be modified only for good cause . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); accord Popoalii v. Corr.
Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497-98 (8th Cir. 2008). Nothing in the three memoranda filed by
Lorenz in support of her motion to amend the complaint justifies the lengthy delay in filing her
motion. Lorenz argues that she only recently learned of certain details regarding some of the

claims that she seeks to add, but the purported “newly discovered evidence” she cites could have
been discovered long ago if Lorenz had been even minimally diligent. Indeed, the vast majority
of the events cited by Lorenz as justifying her delay occurred months or (in some instances) years
before the deadline for filing her motion to amend had expired, and all of the evidence cited by
Lorenz could have been discovered well in advance of that deadline.
Second, Lorenz’s proposed amendments are futile. Some of Lorenz’s new claims appear
to be premised on the thoroughly discredited “show-me-the-note” theory. See Welk v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 850 F. Supp. 2d 976, 980 (D. Minn. 2012) (“A plaintiff bringing a
show-me-the-note claim generally argues that, because the entity that holds her mortgage . . . is
not the same as the entity that holds her note . . . the mortgage on her home or the foreclosure of
that mortgage is invalid. This argument is frivolous when made under Minnesota law.”). Other
new claims are premised on the similarly discredited theory that mortgagors may seek relief
based “on allegations that their notes and mortgages were transferred to trusts underlying
mortgage-backed securities and that their foreclosures violated the terms of the trust agreements
relating to these mortgage-backed securities.” Karnatcheva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704
F.3d 545, 547 (8th Cir. 2013). Finally, Lorenz’s proposed amended complaint does not contain
sufficient factual allegations to render any of her new claims “plausible.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
For these reasons, Lorenz’s motion to amend the complaint is denied.

-2-

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff Teresa Lorenz’s motion to amend the complaint [ECF
No. 28] is DENIED.
Dated: May 28 , 2014

s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge

-3-