Lyall v. U S Bank National Assocation et al
ORDER granting plaintiff's 19 Motion to amend the complaint; the court now considers the amended complaint 16 to be the operative complaint signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)
THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
MARTA D. LYALL,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; TRUMAN TITLE 2013 )
SC3 TITLE TRUST; TRUMAN
CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP;
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT )
SERVICES, LLC; BANK OF AMERICA, )
N.A.; DITECH HOME LOAN
SERVICING; CWABS MASTER
TRUST, REVOLVING HOME EQUITY )
LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES,
SERIES 2004-"O"; CARNEGIE
MELLON UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY )
OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE; DISPUTE RESOLUTION )
CENTER OF KING COUNTY; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100,
Case No: 17-00472-RAJ
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend her
Complaint. Dkt. # 19. The financial defendants and Defendant University of
Washington (UW) oppose any amendment. Dkt. ## 20, 34.
ORDER - 1
Amendment to pleadings is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).
Rule 15(a) “provides that a party’s right to amend as a matter of course terminates 21
days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under
Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.,
606 F.3d 1154, 1159 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “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 justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2). “In exercising this discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying
purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate a decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or
technicalities.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 628 (9th Cir. 1991); United
States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, the policy of favoring
amendments to pleadings should be applied with “extreme liberality.” DCD Programs,
Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).
Against this extremely liberal standard, the Court may deny leave to amend after
considering “the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the
opposing party, and/or futility.” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d
708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). But “[n]ot all of the factors merit equal weight ... it is the
consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.”
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent
prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [ ] factors, there exists a
presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. The party
opposing amendment bears the heavy burden of overcoming this presumption. DCD
Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint adds little to her
lawsuit. Dkt. ## 20, 34. However, Defendants are not prejudiced by the amendment.
The Court’s Order granting the financial defendants’ motion to dismiss was not based on
ORDER - 2
the merits of that motion, and therefore an amendment will not affect that Order or the
pending appeal. Additionally, UW references the amended complaint in its Motion to
Dismiss, and therefore the Court is able to rule on that motion without requiring UW to
file an additional motion.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend her
complaint. Plaintiff has already filed her Proposed Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 16. The
Court now considers this Amended Complaint to be the operative complaint in this
lawsuit. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk to strike the word “Proposed” from the
docket entry so that the docket accurately reflects the operative complaint.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER - 3
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?