GLOVER v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. et al
Filing
232
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 231 Order on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 05/19/2011. (cms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARY E. GLOVER,
)
)
individually and on behalf )
of other similarly situated )
former and current
)
homeowners in Pennsylvania, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARK J. UDREN, UDREN LAW
)
OFFICES, P.C., WELLS FARGO
)
HOME MORTGAGE, GOLDMAN SACHS )
MORTGAGE COMPANY
)
)
Defendants.
)
Civil Action No. 08-990
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mitchell, J.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Mary Glover’s (“Glover”)
motion to amend the second amended complaint (Doc. No. 224). For
the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) “[a] party may amend its
pleading once as a matter of course . . . .
In all other cases,
a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave.
The court should freely
give leave when the justice so requires.”
Whether to grant or
deny the motion is within the court's discretion.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, (1962).
Foman v.
Glover
requests
leave
to
amend:
1)
to
plead
new
contractual theories against Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
(“Wells Fargo”); and, 2) to assert claims of unjust enrichment
against
Defendant
Sachs”).
the
Goldman
Sachs
Mortgage
Company
(“Goldman
Glover asserts that amendment is necessary to reflect
court’s
interpretation
of
the
mortgage-related
documents
that are the subject of this lawsuit.
A court may deny a motion for leave to amend if “(1)
the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or
dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the
amendment
would
prejudice
the
other
party.”
Fraser
v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 352 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir.
2004).
on
Undue delay occurs “when it places an unwarranted burden
the
court
or
when
opportunities to amend.”
the
plaintiff
has
had
previous
Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resort, LP, 550
F.3d 263, 266 (3d Cir. 2008). In deciding questions of undue
delay, the court balances the movant's reasons for not amending
sooner against the burden of delay on the court. Id.
Glover’s
reasons
for
the
delay
in
amending
are
unpersuasive and would impose an already burgeoning burden on
the
court.
First,
when
plaintiff
filed
her
second
amended
complaint, two years after the original complaint was filed, she
was
aware
contractual
of
the
and
various
otherwise,
relationships
and
had
among
access
to
the
the
parties,
documents
evidencing those relationships.
There are no new facts that
demonstrate that the proposed alternative breach of contract
claims against Wells Fargo and/or the unjust enrichment claim
against Glodman Sachs were not previously viable and could not
have been earlier pled.
Plaintiffs “should not be permitted a
do-over to assert new legal theories and permutations of its
prior claims that it could have presented earlier.”
Goldfish
Shipping, S.A. v. HSH Nordbank AG, 623 F.Supp 2d. 635, 641 (E.D.
Pa. 2009).
Allowing
amendment
burden on the court.
would
also
place
an
unwarranted
This matter has been pending since July,
2008, and the docket reflects well over 200 entries.
Plaintiff
has filed four complaints, and indeed, was ordered by the Court
to
certify
that
the
second
complaint (Doc. No. 146)1.
amended
complaint
was
the
final
Four motions to dismiss were fully
briefed and decided and numerous extensions to file pleadings
have been granted.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Court will
deny Glover’s motion to amend.
Amendment, at this stage of the
litigation, would exact a disservice to the interests of justice
in the disposition of the case and would cause undue delay.
The
Court also considers that amendment would unfairly prejudice the
defendants in this action.
1
An appropriate Order follows.
Glover’s response to this Order was less than compliant.
.
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?