Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02106/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02106-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIMAL SUSANTHA DIUNUGALA,

an individual, on behalf of himself and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2106-WQHNLS

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 Amended Motion for Leave to Amend the

Pleadings, filed by Plaintiff Nimal Sustantha Diunugala. (ECF No. 45).

I. Background 

On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff Nimal Sustantha Diunugala initiated this action by

filing a Complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1-2). On August

24, 2012, all Defendants jointly filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. (ECF No. 1). 

On May 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is the operative

pleading. (ECF No. 19). On October 3, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in

part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed all claims without prejudice except

for the cause of action for violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1641g. 

- 1 - 12cv2106-WQH-NLS

Case 3:12-cv-02106-WQH-KSC Document 54 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 4
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

(ECF No. 29).

On January 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order stating that “[a]ny

motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall

be filed on or before February 21, 2014.” (ECF No. 43 at 1).

On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Pleadings,

which included a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion, but

did not include a proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 44). On February 27,

2014, Plaintiff filed the Amended Motion for Leave to Amend the Pleadings, which

included a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed second amended

complaint. (ECF No. 45). 

On March 17, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to the Amended Motion for

Leave to Amend the Pleadings, accompanied by a request for judicial notice. (ECF No.

46). Defendants contend that leave to amend should be denied because the Amended

Motion for Leave to Amend the Pleadings was filed after the deadline for motions to

amend the pleadings, and the proposed amendment would be futile because it would be

subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the Amended Motion for

Leave to Amend the Pleadings, accompanied by a request for judicial notice. (ECF No.

47).

II. Standard of Review

A motion for leave to amend the complaint filed after the deadline for such

motions is governed by the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16, which “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992) (same). The party

seeking leave to amend must show good cause pursuant to Rule 16. See Johnson, 975

F.2d at 609. 

If good cause is shown, a court may then consider the standard of Federal Rule

- 2 - 12cv2106-WQH-NLS

Case 3:12-cv-02106-WQH-KSC Document 54 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 4
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

of Civil Procedure 15, which mandates that leave to amend “be freely given when

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. The Rule

15 standard “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 pursuant to Rule 15, a court considers whether there

is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing 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,” pursuant to

Rule 15. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff contends that the Amended Motion for Leave to Amend the Pleadings,

filed less than a week after the deadline in the scheduling order, should be considered

to relate back to Plaintiff’s prior motion for leave to amend, which was timely filed a

week earlier. Plaintiff contends that even if the amended motion does not relate back,

good cause exists for the untimely amended motion because it was based on “a

sophisticated and complex Chapter 11 proceeding in Delaware that contained over

10,000 documents,” and the amended motion was filed one day after the California

Supreme Court declined the request to depublish Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.

App. 4th 1079 (2013). (ECF No. 47 at 17-18).

Based upon the fact that Plaintiff timely filed the original motion and the reasons

proferred by the Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately shown good

cause pursuant to Rule 16 for filing the amended motion six days past the deadline. The

Court finds that 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

- 3 - 12cv2106-WQH-NLS

Case 3:12-cv-02106-WQH-KSC Document 54 Filed 05/29/14 Page 3 of 4
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

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.”).

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Motion for Leave to Amend the

Pleadings is GRANTED. (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff shall file the proposed second

amended complaint attached to the amended motion within ten days of the date this

Order is filed.

DATED: May 29, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv2106-WQH-NLS

Case 3:12-cv-02106-WQH-KSC Document 54 Filed 05/29/14 Page 4 of 4