Westwood v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing 20

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint be Denied. Objections to R&R due by 5/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/5/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 GIOVANNA WESTWOOD, 7 8 9 10 11 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:16-cv-02409-RFB-GWF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF 13 No. 16), filed on March 24, 2017. Defendant filed its Response (ECF No. 17) on April 7, 2017. 14 Plaintiff filed her Reply (ECF No. 18) on April 11, 2017. 15 This matter arises from allegations of wrongful foreclosure. See Complaint (ECF No. 3). 16 Plaintiff requests leave to amend her complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure to add two defendants and to include allegations that she has tendered payment in full of 18 her mortgage loan. After the time for amendment as a matter of course has expired, a party may 19 amend its pleading only by leave of court or by the other party’s written consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 15(a)(2). The Court has discretion to grant leave and should freely do so when justice so requires. 21 Id. Courts may deny leave to amend if 1) it will cause undue delay; 2) it will cause undue prejudice 22 to the opposing party; 3) the request is made in bad faith; 4) the party has repeatedly failed to cure 23 deficiencies; or 5) the amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 24 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). 25 A proposed amendment is futile if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment that 26 would constitute a valid claim or defense. Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 219 (9th 27 Cir.1988). Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request to amend should be denied as futile because the 28 alleged tendered payment was not drawn on a legitimate form of currency. Plaintiff’s alleged tender 1 appears to be a self-executed money order purporting to be drawn on the United States Treasury, 2 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. for payment to Defendant. See Defendant’s 3 Response (ECF No. 17-1), Exhibit. A. Plaintiff also sent a similar self-executed money order 4 purported to be drawn on the United States Treasury to the United States Treasury. Id. at ECF No. 5 17-2, Exhibit B. As such, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are futile because 6 her allegations fail to meet the applicable pleading standard. Id. at pg. 8-9. The Court agrees. 7 Plaintiff fails to rebut the assertion that her purported payment was unlawful and her proposed 8 amendments rely on failed legal theories. Defendant, therefore, demonstrates that Plaintiff’s 9 proposed amendment is futile. Accordingly, 10 11 12 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 16) be denied. DATED this 5th day of May, 2017. 13 14 15 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?