Zean et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
161
ORDER denying 118 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings; denying 131 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings(Written Opinion). Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 12/4/2018. (JMK) cc: Eunice Zean. Modified on 12/4/2018 (JLB).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Samuel Zean and Eunice Zean,
Case No. 17-cv-3817 (NEB/HB)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Defendant.
HILDY BOWBEER, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Samuel Zean and Eunice Zean’s
Motions for Leave to Amend and File Proposed Third Amended Complaint [Doc. Nos.
118, 131]. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are denied.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs Samuel and Eunice Zean commenced this action by serving a state court
complaint on Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Experian Information Solutions, Inc.;
Equifax Information Services, LLC; and Trans Union LLC. 1 (See Notice of Removal
[Doc. No. 1]; Compl. [Doc. No. 1-1].) Wells Fargo removed the action to federal court
on August 18, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of course
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) on September 15, 2017. (Am.
Compl. [Doc. No. 18].) Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15,
1
When the suit was commenced, Plaintiffs were represented by counsel. Plaintiffs began
representing themselves pro se on June 7, 2018.
and 16 of the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 26], but before the motion was
decided, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 43].
This Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to amend in an Order
dated April 12, 2018 [Doc. No. 65]. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. 65], which is now the operative pleading, and Wells Fargo moved
to dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 of the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 72]. 2
About two weeks after Wells Fargo filed its second motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’
counsel David Madgett filed a motion to withdraw as counsel [Doc. No. 79]. Plaintiffs
did not oppose the motion, and the Court granted the motion on June 7, 2018 [see Doc.
No. 97]. The Court stayed all remaining deadlines and litigation activity for thirty days
to allow Plaintiffs to secure new counsel if they so desired.
Opting to proceed pro se, on September 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 118], a memorandum in
opposition to the pending motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 122], and other related filings,
some of which were marked “Filed in Error.” On September 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed
numerous additional documents in support of their motion to amend and in opposition to
Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, several of which were marked “Filed in Error” or were
duplicative of previous filings [Doc. Nos. 129-34]. One of these filings was a duplicative
motion for leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 131]. Unlike the
original motion [Doc. No. 118], the second motion properly attached a proposed third
2
Wells Fargo’s second motion to dismiss remains pending, has been referred to this
Court, and will be addressed in a separate report and recommendation.
2
amended complaint and a redlined version of the proposed third amended complaint,
which is why the Court did not strike one of the motions to amend and will consider
those two motions together.
Because the docket had become quite unwieldy due to the duplicative filings and
those marked as “Filed in Error,” this Court entered an Order on September 27, 2018,
advising the parties that the Court would consider the following documents filed by
Plaintiffs in deciding whether to grant Plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint:
Doc. Nos. 118, 119, 120, 121, 130, and 131. (Order at 3, Sept. 27, 2019 [Doc. No. 136].)
Plaintiffs continued to file documents relating to their motions to amend, however, most
of which were duplicative of documents previously filed and marked as “Filed in Error”
[see Doc. Nos. 138-43]. Plaintiffs also filed an “Amended Proposed Third Amended
Complaint” [Doc. No. 148], which the Court struck because there were already two
pending motions for leave to file a third amended complaint, and no rule or court
procedure permits the serial filings of new proposed amended complaints (see Text-Only
Order, Oct. 9, 2018 [Doc. No. 151]).
In the motions to amend now before the Court, Plaintiffs seek to amend their
Second Amended Complaint to cure certain deficiencies identified in Wells Fargo’s
second partial motion to dismiss; to add new FCRA claims based on Wells Fargo’s
alleged conduct on July 9, 2018; to add a new RESPA claim based on Wells Fargo’s
alleged conduct on August 17, 2018; to add a new breach of mortgage contract claim
based on Wells Fargo’s alleged conduct on September 8, 2018; and to add allegations to
satisfy the particularity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). (Pls.’ Mots.
3
Amend at 2 [Doc. Nos. 118, 131].) Wells Fargo opposes the motion to amend on three
grounds: (1) the motion is untimely under the pretrial scheduling order, and Plaintiffs
have not shown good cause to modify the deadline for motions to amend; (2) Plaintiffs
have already amended their complaint twice and should not be allowed to amend a third
time; and (3) allowing the third amended complaint would prejudice Wells Fargo and
unduly delay the case.
II.
Discussion
Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party may amend
its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” and
“[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
“[T]here is no absolute right to amend,” however, and a court may deny leave to amend
“based upon a finding of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies in previous amendments, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or
futility.” Baptist Health v. Smith, 477 F.3d 540, 544 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
There is authority from this District suggesting that a court should resolve a
motion to amend before resolving a motion to dismiss when both motions are pending
before the court at the same time. See Garrison v. Minn. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 16-cv2866 (WMW/HB), 2017 WL 3382778, at *5 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2017). Though this is not
a firm rule, and may not always be warranted by the circumstances of a particular case,
see, e.g., Meyer v. Haeg, No. 15-cv-2564, R. & R. (D. Minn. June 25, 2016), ECF No.
292; Meyer v. Haeg, No. 15-cv-2564, slip op. (D. Minn. July 8, 2016), ECF No. 295), the
Court finds it well-suited to the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the Court will rule
4
on Plaintiffs’ motions to amend in this Order before recommending a disposition of
Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss in a separate report and recommendation.
In addition, “[i]f a party files for leave to amend outside of the court’s scheduling
order, the party must show [good] cause to modify the schedule.” Popoalii v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)). “The primary
measure of good cause is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the order’s
requirements.” Rahn v. Hawkins, 464 F.3d 813, 822 (8th Cir. 2006).
A.
Plaintiffs’ Motion Is Untimely, and Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Good
Cause to Extend the Deadline for Motions to Amend
The current pretrial scheduling order established a deadline of December 19, 2017,
for motions to amend pleadings. (Pretrial Sched. Order at 2 [Doc. No. 40].) Plaintiffs’
motion to amend was filed on September 17, 2018, more than eight months after the
expiration of that deadline.
Plaintiffs have not acknowledged the expiration of the deadline for motions to
amend pleadings, asked to extend it, or argued there is good cause for an extension.
Despite these deficiencies, the Court has considered whether Plaintiffs diligently
attempted to comply with the deadline for motions to amend. That deadline expired on
December 19, 2017, and Plaintiffs (through counsel) actually filed a previous motion to
amend on that date. Were the Court asked to consider whether that motion was filed
diligently, the Court would conclude it was. But Plaintiffs’ current motion was not filed
until September 17, 2018, more than nine months after the deadline expired.
Though Plaintiffs did not specify grounds for good cause, the Court has
5
considered the circumstances of this case, which are documented thoroughly in the
record. To the extent Plaintiffs would argue that the withdrawal of their attorney
constitutes good cause to allow their untimely motion to amend, the Court disagrees. On
June 7, 2018, the Court stayed all remaining deadlines and litigation activity in the case
for one month so that Plaintiffs could secure new counsel if they desired. The Court did
not, however, revive any expired deadlines, nor did the Court indicate or intend that
Plaintiffs could file a motion to amend their complaint a third time.
To the extent Plaintiffs would argue that Wells Fargo’s third motion to dismiss
provides good cause to extend the deadline for amended pleadings, the Court finds
otherwise. Wells Fargo filed its first motion to dismiss on October 10, 2017 [Doc. No.
26]. The motion was fully briefed, which gave Plaintiffs full notice of the pleading
deficiencies claimed by Wells Fargo, and Plaintiffs filed their December 2017 motion to
amend for the purpose of curing those deficiencies. (See Pls.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend
at 1 [Doc. No. 44].) Thus, Plaintiffs have already had the benefit of knowing Wells
Fargo’s arguments for dismissal in crafting their Second Amended Complaint. The Court
will not endorse a potentially perpetual cycle of motions to dismiss and motions to
amend.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs would argue that they acted diligently after learning
of Wells Fargo’s recent actions, any such argument would be founded on the false
premise that Plaintiffs would need to amend their complaint each time Wells Fargo
allegedly made an inaccurate report to a credit reporting agency or breached the mortgage
contract. Plaintiffs allege that these instances of wrongdoing are ongoing, and notice
6
pleading does not require a plaintiff to amend the complaint each time a defendant
allegedly commits an additional similar action.
As to the proposed new RESPA claim, Plaintiffs were not diligent in seeking to
amend that claim both because of lack of promptness and because of carelessness.
Diligence is not just promptness; diligence also entails attentiveness, carefulness, and
heedfulness. Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Plaintiffs were not attentive in
seeking to add the RESPA claim because the proposed amended complaint does not
include a RESPA violation for Wells Fargo’s August 17, 2018 conduct, which is the
conduct Plaintiffs described in their motion as founding the new RESPA claim. (See
Proposed Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 312-17; Pls.’ Mots. Amend at 2 [Doc. Nos. 118, 131].)
Rather, the conduct alleged in the proposed new RESPA claim occurred in July 2016.
Plaintiffs not only knew about that conduct long ago, they even included allegations
about it in the RESPA claim they pleaded in their proposed second amended complaint
(Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶ 277 [Doc. No. 45-1]). Consequently, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs were not diligent in seeking to add the new RESPA claim based on both
lack of promptness and lack of attentiveness.
For the above reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is
untimely and that the deadline for motions to amend should not be extended. Plaintiffs’
motion is denied for these reasons.
B.
Plaintiffs Repeatedly Failed to Cure Pleading Deficiencies
Alternatively, and assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs had diligently sought to
extend the deadline to amend pleadings, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to amend
7
because Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies through previous amendments.
Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint twice: once as a matter of right and once
with the Court’s leave. Moreover, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint after
the benefit of reviewing Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
Except for the allegations related to Wells Fargo’s alleged recent conduct, Plaintiffs
could have included the allegations they now propose in their Second Amended
Complaint. And as already noted, with respect to Wells Fargo’s alleged recent conduct,
Plaintiffs need not amend their complaint each time Wells Fargo allegedly violates the
RESPA or FCRA, or breaches the mortgage contract.
C.
Plaintiffs Have Unduly Delayed This Case and Wells Fargo Will Suffer
Prejudice if the Amendments Are Allowed
Finally, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, in the alternative, because
the case has been delayed unduly and Wells Fargo will be prejudiced were the Court to
grant leave to amend. Wells Fargo has now filed two motions to dismiss, both of which
proceeded to full briefing. One motion to dismiss was rendered moot by the filing of the
Second Amended Complaint, and the second motion to dismiss is pending. If the Court
were to allow Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint, Wells Fargo submits it
would need to file a third motion to dismiss. The time and resources that would be
required to oppose a now 49-page complaint, plus hundreds of pages of exhibits, are
significant and should not be disregarded. Though this is not the type of prejudice on
which leave to amend could be denied alone, it is a factor the Court may consider.
Relatedly, a court may deny a motion to amend where “the plaintiff’s delay in
8
seeking to amend is undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the opposing party.”
Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resort, LP, 550 F.3d 263, 266 (3d Cir. 2008); see United States v.
Vorachek, 563 F.2d 884, 887 (8th Cir. 1977). “Delay becomes ‘undue,’ and thereby
creates grounds . . . to refuse leave, when it places an unwarranted burden on the court or
when the plaintiff has had previous opportunities to amend.” Bjorgung, 550 F.3d at 266.
Here, Plaintiffs’ delay is undue for both reasons. This case was filed more than a year
ago. Since then, Plaintiffs have filed two motions to amend their complaint and have
amended their complaint twice, and Wells Fargo has filed two motions to dismiss.
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint—if granted—would lead to the fourth
complaint to be filed in this case. Plaintiffs’ delay in crafting a pleading on which this
case can move forward places an unnecessary burden on the Court and on Wells Fargo.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Samuel Zean and
Eunice Zean’s Motions for Leave to Amend and File Proposed Third Amended
Complaint [Doc. Nos. 118, 131] are DENIED.
Dated: December 4, 2018
s/ Hildy Bowbeer
HILDY BOWBEER
United States Magistrate Judge
9
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?