Tracy et al v. CEO, Successor, et al.,

Filing 178

ORDER denying 149 , 150 , and 152 Motions to Amend. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/5/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
9

LINWOOD EDWARD TRACY, JR.; et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12

CEO, SUCCESSOR FOR DEUTSCHE
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; et al.,

13
Defendants.
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-cv-0436-LRH-VPC
ORDER

Before the court are plaintiff Linwood Edward Tracy, Jr.’s (“Tracy”) motions to amend his

16

complaint. Doc. ##149, 150, 152.1

17

I.

18

Facts and Background
At its core, this is a wrongful foreclosure and wrongful taxation action. Plaintiff William

19

Gerald Fillion (“Fillion”) owned real property in California which was subject to state, county, and

20

city tax assessments. The tax assessments went unpaid and eventually the property was foreclosed

21

upon.

22

On June 21, 2011, plaintiffs filed a civil rights complaint against defendants for violation of

23

their First and Fourth Amendment rights. See Doc. #1. In particular, plaintiffs challenge the tax

24

assessments and foreclosure claiming that the property belonged to a non-profit organization. In

25

response, defendants filed a series of motions to dismiss which were granted by the court.

26
1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

1

Thereafter, Tracy filed the present motions to amend his complaint.

2

II.

3

Discussion
A party may amend its pleadings after a responsive pleading has been filed by leave of

4

court. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Leave of court to amend should be freely given when justice so

5

requires and when there is no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the moving

6

party. See Wright v. Incline Village General Imp. Dist., 597 F.Supp.2d 1191 (D. Nev. 2009); DCD

7

Programs, LTD v. Leighton, 883 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987).

8

Here, Tracy seeks to add additional claims against the already dismissed defendants and to

9

add additional defendants to this action. See Doc. ##149, 150, 152. However, Tracy has failed to

10

provide a copy of the proposed amended complaint in accordance with LR 15-1. Further, the court

11

has reviewed Tracy’s motions and finds that they are untimely as they have been brought more than

12

six months after most defendants have been dismissed. Finally, the court finds that allowing an

13

amended complaint adding additional claims would unduly prejudice those defendants that have

14

already been dismissed. Accordingly, the court shall deny Tracy’s motions to amend.

15
16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to amend (Doc. ##149, 150, 152)
are DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 5th day of July, 2012.

20
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
2