Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05029/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05029-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL A. JUDAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, AS LENDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05029-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 25

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The 

Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and 

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2015, Plaintiffs Manuel Judan and Marylyn Callejo-Judan filed the 

instant action pro se in state court, and on November 2, 2015, the Defendants removed to the 

Northern District of California and filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 1, 9. On January 19, 

2016, the Court took Defendants’ motion to dismiss under submission. Dkt. No. 19. On July 14, 

2016, Plaintiffs retained Mellen Law Firm, and the firm filed a notice of appearance in place of 

Plaintiffs pro per on July 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 25-2, ¶ 2. On August 18, 2016, Plaintiffs through 

their newly-acquired counsel filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 25. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “a party may amend its 

pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. 

Granting or denying leave to amend a complaint is in the Court’s discretion, Cal. v. Neville Chem. 

Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004). “In exercising this discretion, a court must be guided by 

Case 4:15-cv-05029-HSG Document 26 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings 

or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). “Rule 15 advises the 

court that ‘leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. 

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “This policy is to be applied with 

extreme liberality.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

When considering whether to grant leave, courts examine these factors: “(1) bad faith, (2) 

undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether 

plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 

90 F.3d 351, 355-56 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). 

III. DISCUSSION

Since filing the complaint and opposing the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs have obtained 

counsel. The proposed amended complaint sets forth proper causes of action and more clearly 

identifies the allegations against Defendants. Because the initial complaint was filed pro se and 

because the policy of favoring amendments under Rule 15(a) “is applied even more liberally to 

pro se litigants” than to parties represented by counsel, Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 

(9th Cir. 1987), the Court finds that the interests of justice weigh in favor of granting leave to 

amend. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding that pro se pleadings are held 

“to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”). 

There is no evidence of bad faith or undue delay. In fact, since becoming counsel a month 

ago, counsel from Mellen Law Firm has acted diligently and expeditiously. Counsel has reviewed 

the case, communicated with opposing counsel, and attempted to address deficiencies in the 

original complaint. Counsel indicates that “[u]pon receipt and review of the case and file 

documents, the Mellen Law Firm recognized that the Complaint is deficient and does not set forth 

proper causes of action,” and the firm began drafting a first amended complaint and the instant 

motion. Dkt. No. 25-2, ¶¶ 3-4. On August 12 and 15, counsel emailed opposing counsel a draft of 

the amended complaint, seeking Defendants’ stipulation in the filing of the new complaint. These 

actions evidence both diligence and good faith. 

Moreover, the Court finds that any prejudice to Defendants is minimal. Although the 

Case 4:15-cv-05029-HSG Document 26 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint alleges new causes of action, the allegations arise from the same facts alleged in the 

original complaint: the 2003 purchase of property in Pacifica, California and Plaintiffs’ financing 

of the property. Given the early stage of litigation, the absence of a case schedule, and the fact 

that a first amended complaint drafted by Plaintiffs’ newly-obtained counsel would further 

Defendants’ (and the Court’s) understanding of the case, the Court finds that any prejudice is not 

sufficient to deny Plaintiffs leave to amend. In addition, even were the Court to consider the 

currently-pending motion to dismiss on the merits, Ninth Circuit authority makes clear that leave 

to amend generally should be granted in most circumstances in any event. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Finally, Plaintiffs have not previously amended the complaint, and the Court concludes

that amendment would not be futile in this case. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is 

GRANTED. The Court directs Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint by August 23, 2016. 

The pending motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 9, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

8/19/2016

Case 4:15-cv-05029-HSG Document 26 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 3