Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01872/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01872-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John-Raymond Nichols, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael A. Bosco, Jr., et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-01872-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion to file second amended complaint (docs. 39

and 59 (additional attachments plus a red line copy of the second amended complaint)), the

Wells Fargo defendants' response (doc. 45) and plaintiff's motion to voluntarily withdraw his

first amended complaint (doc. 57). In addition we have before us, plaintiff's motion "to

sequester the genuine original trust note" (doc. 23), the Wells Fargo defendants' response

(doc. 42), plaintiff's reply (doc. 54), and plaintiff's supplement to his reply (doc. 55).

Plaintiff filed this action on August 25, 2010 in the Superior Court of Arizona in

Maricopa County (doc. 1, ex. A). The complaint named several national banks, their

officers, and the foreclosure trustee, and asserted claims of fraud, lack of standing to

foreclose, and violations of various federal statutes. The Wells Fargo defendants removed

the case to this court on September 1, 2010 (doc. 1). On October 18, 2010, we denied

plaintiff's motion to remand on the ground that we have federal question and supplemental

Case 2:10-cv-01872-FJM Document 61 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff claims he is not advancing a show-me-the note theory, but rather is simply

asking the court to protect his property rights. Motion to Sequester ¶ 7. However, by asking

- 2 -

jurisdiction (doc. 43). We also granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint once as a

matter of right pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Plaintiff now asks us for leave to file a second amended complaint and to "sequester"

the original trust deed note until final adjudication.

I. Motion to Amend

Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once as a matter of right, so now plaintiff

may amend the complaint only with leave of court. Rule 15(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.. Leave

should be freely given "when justice so requires." Id. In deciding whether to grant leave,

we will consider whether the amendment prejudices the opposing party, is sought in bad

faith, produces undue delay, or is futile. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc.,

465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006).

By his amendment, plaintiff seeks to drop all his claims under federal statutes, dismiss

certain defendants, and clarify his claims and requests for relief. The Wells Fargo defendants

do not oppose the motion, other than to point out plaintiff has failed to provide us with a red

line version as required by LRCiv. 15.1. No other defendants have responded. Because

leave to amend should be freely given, we will grant plaintiff's request for leave to amend.

Furthermore, plaintiff has since filed a red line version of his second amended complaint

(doc. 59). Plaintiff is instructed, however, that now he must file and serve the second

amended complaint on all parties pursuant to LRCiv. 15.1 and Rule 5, Fed. Civ. P.

II. Motion to Sequester the Original Note

Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Sequester the Genuine Original Trust Deed Note Until

Final Adjudication of this Matter." Plaintiff asks that we require defendants to produce the

original trust deed note for us to inspect and hold until the litigation is over. Plaintiff's

motion is simply another formulation of the "show me the note" legal theory which we

previously stated is not viable (doc. 25, at 2-3).1

 Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statute,

Case 2:10-cv-01872-FJM Document 61 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

this court to require defendants to produce the original trust deed note, plaintiff is essentially

arguing that production of the note is required for non-judicial foreclosure, which it is not.

Plaintiff continues to advance a "show me the note" legal argument whether he requests the

note be produced for the court to see or for himself to see.

- 3 -

which governs this case since plaintiff signed a deed of trust when he mortgaged his home,

places no obligation on defendants to produce the original note before commencing a

trustee's sale. See, e.g., Mansour v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Grp., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1178,

1181 (D. Ariz. 2009). Therefore, we will deny the motion.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to amend (doc. 39), and

DENYING plaintiff's motion to sequester the original note (doc. 23). In addition, since

plaintiff has recently filed a duplicate first amended complaint (doc. 58), IT IS ORDERED

that the duplicate first amended complaint will be stricken (doc. 58). Finally, for clarity

purposes, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the red line version of the second amended

complaint (doc. 59) will be the applicable complaint in this action.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01872-FJM Document 61 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 3