Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00488/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00488-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLINGTON DANIELS and DIANE

DANIELS,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13cv488-WQH-JMA

ORDER

vs.

COMUNITY LENDING, INC.; NEW

CENTURY MORTGAGE; THE

BANK OF AMERICA HOME

LOANS; COUNTRYWIDE HOME

LOANS; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;

GINNIE MAE; THE BANK OF NEW

YORK; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATIONS SYSTEMS

(MERS); and RECONTRUST

COMPANY, N.A.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before to Court are (1) the Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64); (2) the Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ “Response in

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Leave to File Second Amended Complaint” (ECF No.

75); and (3) the failure to effectuate service on Defendants ComUnity Lending, Inc. and

New Century Mortgage.

I. Background

On January 6, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting a motion to dismiss filed

by Defendants Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home

- 1 - 13cv488-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-JMA Document 78 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 5
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

Loans, Inc., ReconTrust Company, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. (collectively, “moving Defendants”), and dismissing the First Amended

Complaint without prejudice as to the moving Defendants. (ECF No. 60). In the same

Order, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a proof of service within 120 days indicating

that Defendants ComUnity Lending, Inc., New Century Mortgage, and Ginnie Mae

(collectively, “unserved Defendants”) have been served with the First Amended

Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Id. at 14. The Court ordered

the U.S. Marshal to serve the unserved Defendants as directed by Plaintiffs pursuant to

Rule 4(c)(3).

On February 4, 2014, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 64). Attached to

the motion is a proposed second amended complaint and exhibits. Id. at 4-49.

On February 6, 2014, the U.S. Marshal filed unexecuted returns of service

indicating that Defendants ComUnity Lending, Inc. and New Century Mortgage were

no longer at the address provided by Plaintiffs and no forwarding address was known. 

(ECF Nos. 67, 68).

On February 24, 2014, the moving Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion

for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 64). The moving Defendants

contend that the proposed amendment is futile.

On March 10, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a “Response in Opposition to the Motion to

Dismiss Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 74). Plaintiffs assert

that “[t]he Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint

should be denied.” Id. at 3.

On March 18, 2014, the moving Defendants filed the “Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’

‘Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint.’” (ECF No. 75). The moving Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ response

brief filed on March 10, 2014 “appear[s] to oppose a motion to dismiss,” which “is not

before the Court.” (ECF No. 75-1 at 2). The moving Defendants contend that

- 2 - 13cv488-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-JMA Document 78 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiffs’ response brief “should be deemed a reply in support of their motion for leave

to amend, and it should be stricken as untimely.” Id.

On April 18, 2014, the U.S. Marshal filed an executed return of service indicating

that Defendant Ginnie Mae was served. (ECF 77).

II. Discussion

A. Service on ComUnity Lending, Inc. and New Century Mortgage

Plaintiffs have failed to effectuate service on Defendants ComUnity Lending, Inc.

and New Century Mortgage as ordered by the Court in the January 6, 2014 Order. “It

is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide accurate addresses for defendants in order that

they can be served by the United States Marshal.” Furnace v. Knuckles, No. 09-6075-

MMC, 2011 WL 3809770 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011); see also Petty v. Shojaei,

No. 12-1220-JAK, 2013 WL 5890136, at *15 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2013) (collecting

cases). Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not

served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own

after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that

defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

This Order constitutes notice to Plaintiffs that the Court will dismiss this action without

prejudice as to Defendants ComUnity Lending, Inc. and New Century Mortgage on

June 2, 2014, unless, before that date, Plaintiffs file a declaration under penalty of

perjury showing good cause for failure to timely serve Defendants ComUnity Lending,

Inc. and New Century Mortgage, accompanied by a motion for leave to serve process

outside of the 120-day period.

B. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

- 3 - 13cv488-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-JMA Document 78 Filed 05/14/14 Page 3 of 5
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

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing

prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there

exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

After review of the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and

the filings of the parties, the Court concludes that the moving Defendants have not

made a sufficiently strong showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption

under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d

at 1052. The Court will defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the

proposed second amended complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See

Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Ordinarily, courts

will defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading

until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.”). The Motion

for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is granted, and the Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs’ “Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint” is denied.

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will dismiss this action without

prejudice as to Defendants ComUnity Lending, Inc. and New Century Mortgage on

June 2, 2014, unless, before that date, Plaintiffs file a declaration under penalty of

perjury showing good cause for failure to timely serve Defendants ComUnity Lending,

Inc. and New Century Mortgage, accompanied by a motion for leave to serve process

outside of the 120-day period.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

- 4 - 13cv488-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-JMA Document 78 Filed 05/14/14 Page 4 of 5
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

Complaint is GRANTED (ECF No. 64), and the Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ “Response

in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Leave to File Second Amended Complaint” is

DENIED (ECF No. 75). The Clerk of the Court shall file the document entitled

“Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 64 at 4-49) as a new docket entry,

and this document will be construed as the Second Amended Complaint and the

operative pleading in this case. The moving Defendants shall respond to the Second

Amended Complaint no later than fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is filed. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).

DATED: May 14, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 13cv488-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-JMA Document 78 Filed 05/14/14 Page 5 of 5