Pickering et al v. Bank of America Home Loans et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s 62 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiffs via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

STEPHANIE L. PICKERING and TERRY A.
O’KEEFE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. C15-1983-RSM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”)

18

and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”)’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’

19
20
21

Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. #62. Defendants include an “anticipatory Opposition to a
Motion For Leave to Amend.” Id. This Motion was filed on February 15, 2018, and noted for

22

consideration on March 2, 2018. A certificate of service indicates that this Motion was mailed

23

to Plaintiffs prior to or concurrent with filing. Id. at 10. On March 5, 2018, the Court received

24
25
26

Plaintiffs’ Response brief, signed and dated February 28, 2018. Dkt. #63.
Defendants argue that “[t]he majority of the RESPA claims raised in Plaintiffs’ SAC

27

should be stricken because Defendants did not consent to Plaintiffs’ filing of an amended

28

complaint nor did Plaintiffs seek leave of Court to do so,” and that “the majority of the RESPA
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1

1

claims raised in the SAC are the same as those raised in the operative Complaint in these

2

proceedings, thereby making the RESPA claims raised in the SAC redundant and ripe to be

3

stricken.” Id. at 2.

4
5
6
7

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Motion and the remainder of the record. The
Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint should not be stricken because it
essentially puts forward the RESPA claim permitted by the Ninth Circuit. See Dkt. #52.

8

Defendants are correct that the Ninth Circuit did not permit Plaintiffs to amend their

9

Complaint, and a fair reading of the Ninth Circuit Opinion would lead to the conclusion that no

10
11
12

amendment was necessary for this Court to address Plaintiffs’ existing RESPA claims.
Further, as Defendants note, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) required Plaintiffs

13

to seek leave of the Court before amending their Complaint. However, the Court concludes

14

that it would have granted leave for Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint for purposes of clarity

15

and consistent with this Court’s liberal policy to grant such leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2);

16

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court is not

17
18

persuaded by Defendants’ arguments of bad faith and undue delay. Dkt. #62 at 7–8. The Court

19

disagrees that bad faith has been shown here, instead finding that Plaintiffs could have

20

believed, in good faith, that amendment was necessary given the Ninth Circuit’s Opinion. The

21

delay in this case does not alone warrant denying leave to amend. Defendants do not present

22
23
24
25
26
27

evidence of prejudice. Because Defendants have presented their arguments against granting
such leave, and keeping in mind the interest of judicial economy, the Court will not require
Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend.
The Court was able to reach its decision without relying on Plaintiffs’ untimely
Response brief. The Court notes that Plaintiffs, whether intentionally or not, have repeatedly

28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2

1

violated this Court’s Local Rules and that this Order should not be taken as a free pass to

2

continue to do so. Plaintiffs must respond to Motions pursuant to the deadlines of Local Rule

3

7(d), or present concrete evidence of why they were unable to do so.

4
5
6
7
8

Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion
to Strike Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. #62, is DENIED.
DATED this 7 day of March, 2018.

9
10
11
12
13

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 3