Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01752/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01752-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

RIGOBERTO M. ANGUIANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA dba

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv1752 L (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

REOPEN CASE and TO AMEND

THE COMPLAINT [doc. nos. 14, 15]

A. Procedural Background

This action was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the

County of San Diego, on July 16, 2012. Defendants Bank of America and U.S. Bank filed a

motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff did not oppose the dismissal

motion. On February 6, 2013, the Court granted the motion dismissing without prejudice the

slander of title, accounting, quiet title, intentional infliction of emotional distress, cancellation,

violation of California Civil Code 2923.5 (Bank of America only), and wrongful foreclosure 

claims, and with prejudice as to injunctive relief and violation of California Civil Code 2923.5

(U.S. Bank only). Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint no later than 30 days

after the date of the Order, i.e., March 8, 2013. An amended complaint was not filed, nor was an

extension of time in which to file an amended complaint requested.

On March 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for substitution of counsel which the Court

12cv1752

Case 3:12-cv-01752-L-BLM Document 31 Filed 10/28/13 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

granted. If plaintiff anticipated filing motions for leave to reopen the case and to file a first

amended, such motions were to be filed on or before September 18, 2013. Plaintiff timely filed

both motions. Defendants have opposed the motions.

B. Discussion

1. Reopen Case

Plaintiff relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) for reopening his

action. Counsel states that he had prepared the Amended Complaint for timely filing; however,

due to a clerical error by staff members, it was not filed. Thus, plaintiff invokes the excusable

neglect factor from 60(b)(1). Additionally, plaintiff states that his prior counsel failed to plead

the proper causes of action and facts related thereto, and therefore 60(b)(6) may be applied.

A court may set aside a judgment or order only upon a showing of: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move

for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or

discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or

otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have

prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation

of the judgment.

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).

Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates established a balancing

test to determine whether an untimely filing is due to excusable neglect. 507 U.S. 380, 395

(1993); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The determination

whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four factors:

(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its

potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including

whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the

moving party’s conduct was in good faith.

Pincay, 389 F.3d at 855 (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395). 

Defendants do not discuss the factors set forth in Pincay, but rather argue that the time to

file an amended complaint expired and plaintiff has another federal action pending against the

same defendants before the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel. Neither reason demonstrates prejudice

2 12cv1752

Case 3:12-cv-01752-L-BLM Document 31 Filed 10/28/13 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

or that the delay will have a discernable impact on the proceedings or that the delay was solely

within the control of the movant. Further, there is no showing of bad faith on the part of plaintiff

and his counsel.

The Court will reopen this action. If either party believes the cases are amenable to

consolidation, a motion should be filed.

2. Motion to Amend the Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that a plaintiff obtain either consent of the

defendant or leave of court to amend its complaint once the defendant has answered, but “leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a); see also, e.g., Eminence

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)(This policy is “to be applied

with extreme liberality.”); Chodos v. West Pub. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (leave to

amend granted with “extreme liberality”). Leave to amend is ordinarily granted unless the

amendment is futile, would cause undue prejudice to the defendants, or is sought by plaintiffs in

bad faith or with a dilatory motive. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Smith v. Pacific

Properties and Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). These factors are not equally

weighted: “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). 

Here, because the original complaint was dismissed and certain causes of action were

dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, upon the reopening of the case, an amended

complaint must be filed. As discussed above, there is no prejudice to defendants, no bad faith on

the part of plaintiff, and defendants have not argued futility. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

file an amended complaint is appropriately granted. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED. The amended complaint shall

be filed on or before November 4, 2013;

/ / /

/ / /

3 12cv1752

Case 3:12-cv-01752-L-BLM Document 31 Filed 10/28/13 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

3. Defendants shall file an answer or answers to the FAC within the time provided by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 28, 2013

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. BARBARA L, MAJOR

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 

4 12cv1752

Case 3:12-cv-01752-L-BLM Document 31 Filed 10/28/13 Page 4 of 4