Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02106/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02106-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441fr Removal- Fraud

---

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 

10\3 MA'l \ 1 PI~ 3: \8 

Cf i' 'J I, • ,., ' J Jr. 

,QU tiL ,.. v: .IF";,., 

9'1' J- rrrllT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NIMAL SUSANTHA DIUNUGALA, CASE NO. 12cv2106-WQH­

an individual, NLS 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

vs. 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A; 

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE 

SERVICING INC., POWER 

DEFAULT SERVICES, INC., and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings filed 

by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 16). .. 

BACKGROUND 

On July 20, 2012, Plaintiff Nimal Sustantha Diunugala initiated this action by 

filing a Complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. (EFC No.I-2). On August 

24, 2012, all Defendants jointly filed a Notice of Removal to this Court, alleging 

diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No.1). .. 

On January 18,2013, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and 

dismissed the Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 

12(b)(6). (ECFNo.15). 

- 1 - 12cv2106-WQH·NLS 

Case 3:12-cv-02106-WQH-KSC Document 18 Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

111 On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings, 

2 accompanied by a proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint. (ECF No. 16). 

3 On March 26, 2013, Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion for Leave to 

4 II Amend Pleadings. (ECF No. 17). Defendants contend that granting leave to amend 

II would be futile and the addition of class allegations in the proposed First Amended 

6 Class Action Complaint is "belated." Id. at 7. 

7 DISCUSSION 

8 Rule 15 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure mandates that leave to amend 

911 "be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "This policy is to be 

II applied with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 

11 II 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In detennining whether to allow an 

1211 amendment, a court considers whether there is "undue delay," "bad faith," "undue 

13 prejudice to the opposing party," or "futility ofamendment. " Fomanv. Davis, 371 U.S. 

14 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 

II 2004) (citing the Foman factors). "Not all ofthe [Foman] factors merit equal weight.. .. 

16 II [I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest 

17 II weight." Eminence Capital, 316 F .3d at 1052 (citation omitted). "The party opposing 

18 II amendment bears the burden ofshowing prejudice." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 

1911 833 F.2d 183,187 (9th Cir. 1987). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of 

II the remaining F oman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15( a) in favor of 

21 II granting leave to amend." Eminence Capital, 316 F .3d at 1052. 

22 II After review ofthe filings ofthe parties, the Court finds that there has been an 

23 II insufficient showing of prejudice to Defendants or undue delay in bringing the 

24 II proposed class allegations to overcome the "presumption under Rule 15( a) in favor of 

II granting leave to amend." Id. To the extent Defendants challenge the merits of the 

26 II proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint, the Court defers consideration ofthe 

2711 merits until after Plaintiff files the amended pleading. See Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 

2811 212 F.R.D. 534,539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ("Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of 

- 2 - 12cv2\06-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:12-cv-02106-WQH-KSC Document 18 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is 

2 granted and the amended pleading is filed."). 

3 CONCLUSION 

4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to for Leave to Amend Pleadings 

II is GRANTED. (ECF No. 16). No later than ten (10) days from the date this Order is 

611 filed, Plaintiffmay file the proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint which is 

7 

8 

9 

DATE: t;:~~,. 3

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

- 3 - 12cv2106-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:12-cv-02106-WQH-KSC Document 18 Filed 05/17/13 Page 3 of 3