Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02874/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02874-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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 

2012 JUL 18 PH 4= 34 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAMIA SABHERWAL; DONALD T.H. 

SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

fka THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE 

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT, 

INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 

2005-62 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES 2005-62; AND AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE 

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT, 

INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 

2005-81, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES 2005-81 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.; 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; 

REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, SELECT 

PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. AND 

DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE., 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 

CASE NO. 3:llcv2874 WQH BGS 

ORDER 

On May 7, 2012, Plaintiffs Ramia Sabherwal and Donald Smith filed a Motion for 

Leave to File the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiffs attached the proposed 

First Amended Complaint to the Motion. (ECF No.18-1). On May 25,2012, Defendants filed 

an Opposition. (ECF No. 23). 

- 1 - llcv2874 WQH BOS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 26 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 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 

Federal Rule ofCivil 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 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court offered 

several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend 

under Rule 15(a): 

In the absence ofany apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith 

or dilatory motive on the part ofthe movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 

by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by 

VIrtue of allowance of the amendment, fublity of amendment, etc.-the leave 

sought should, as the rules require, be "freely given." 

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 

2004 ) (citing Forman factors). 

"Not all ofthe [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, 

it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight." 

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted). "The party opposing amendment 

bears the burden ofshowing 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 (emphasis in original). 

Defendants oppose the amendment on the grounds that the claims asserted in the 

proposed First Amended Complaint would be subject to dismissal and that granting the Motion 

for Leave to Amend would be futile. The Court concludes that Defendants have not made a 

sufficiently strong showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 

15(a) in favor ofgranting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3dat 1052. The Court 

will defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed First Amended 

Complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba 

Corp., No. C-04-4708, 2006 WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2006) ("In view ofRule 

15( a)' s permissive standard, courts ordinarily defer consideration of challenges to the merits 

of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended 

- 2 - llcv2874 WQH BOS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 26 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 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 

pleading is filed."). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File the First Amended 

Complaint filed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file the First 

Amended Complaint attached to the motion (ECF No. 18-1) within ten days ofthe date ofthis 

order. 

DATED: 1//M~ , 

WILLIAM Q. YES 

United States D trict Judge 

- 3 - llcv2874 WQH BGS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 26 Filed 07/18/12 Page 3 of 3