Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00578/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00578-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE MORRISETTE, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0578-WS-B

 )

NOVASTAR HOME MORTGAGE, INC.,)

 et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant NovaStar Home

Mortgage, Inc. (“NovaStar”) to dismiss, (Doc. 27), and on the plaintiffs’ motion for leave

to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 34). NovaStar has filed a brief in opposition

to the motion to amend, (Doc. 38), and the motion to amend is the plaintiffs’ response to

the motion to dismiss.

NovaStar moved to dismiss the first amended complaint as to it in toto because,

although it was named in the caption of the complaint, the body of the complaint

identified the defendant as “NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.,” an apparently separate entity. 

NovaStar moved to dismiss the first amended complaint with respect to its counts for

violation of Section 8(a) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA),

negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of contract on various grounds. 

In response, the proposed second amended complaint accurately identifies the

defendant as NovaStar, eliminates the claim under Section 8(a) of RESPA, and expressly

limits the ad damnum clauses of the state-law claims to co-defendants Swafford

Settlement Services, Inc. (“Swafford”) and/or TransNation Title Insurance Company. 

NovaStar expresses three objections to the proposed amended complaint: (1) that

the claims it removes should have been dropped four weeks earlier, because plaintiffs’

Case 1:06-cv-00578-WS-B Document 46 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

counsel knew from developments in a similar case that NovaStar would challenge the first

amended complaint; (2) the plaintiffs purport not to “abandon these causes of action” that

their second amended complaint omits; and (3) the proposed fraud claim is ambiguous as

to its treatment of NovaStar. On these bases, NovaStar consents to the proposed amended

complaint only if the eliminated claims are denoted as “dismissed with prejudice.”

In the absence of circumstances not present here, “a party may amend the party’s

pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall

be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Under this rule, “district

courts should generously allow amendments ....” Williams v. Board of Regents, 2007 WL

431047 at *5 n.6 (11th Cir. 2007). NovaStar does not argue that the generous sentiment of

Rule 15(a) should not apply here; it argues only for a dismissal with prejudice. The

Court, however, can discern no reason for such a condition. 

NovaStar justifies its demand by equating the amended complaint with a voluntary

dismissal of the removed claims, but such dismissals are ordinarily without prejudice, not

with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). This is so even when the plaintiff delays

dismissal until faced with a fully briefed, meritorious motion on the merits. “Under our

circuit precedent, delay alone, in the absence of bad faith, is insufficient to justify a

dismissal with prejudice, even where a fully briefed summary judgment motion is

pending.” Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (11th Cir.

2001). NovaStar has not alleged bad faith. 

By failing to “abandon” the omitted claims, the plaintiffs do nothing more than

express the natural effect of a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Of course, the

deleted claims cannot unilaterally be reinserted in this action, and to satisfy their

obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, before seeking reinstatement

plaintiffs’ counsel will have to come to grips with the points made in NovaStar’s motion

to dismiss. 

With respect to the fraud claim, Count III twice refers generally to “the

Case 1:06-cv-00578-WS-B Document 46 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

Defendants,” but the ad damnum clause is directed exclusively against Swafford. The

Court thus construes the claim as asserted only against Swafford. Absent a successful

motion to amend, an amendment to conform to the evidence, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b), or

injection through the proposed pretrial document, id. 16(d), no fraud claim against

NovaStar will be recognized by the Court.

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second

amended complaint is granted and NovaStar’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot. The

Clerk is directed to docket the proposed second amended complaint attached as an exhibit

to the motion for leave to file.

 

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00578-WS-B Document 46 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 3