Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00737/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00737-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

- 1 - 09cv737 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSANA RIVAS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv737 WQH (BLM)

ORDER

vs.

NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint. (Doc. # 20). 

BACKGROUND

This action concerns Plaintiff’s mortgage. On April 10, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this

action by filing her Complaint against Defendants New Century Mortgage Corporation, San

Diego County Real Estate Services, Countrywide Home Loans, and American Servicing

Company. (Doc. # 1). On August 7, 2009, Defendant Countrywide Home Loans filed a

motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 4). On September 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed her First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) as of right. (Doc. # 6). The FAC alleged nine causes of action: (1)

Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), (2) Violation of the Truth

In Lending Act (“TILA”), (3) Violation of California Civil Code § 1632, (4) Violation of

California Business & Professions Code § 17200, (5) Negligent Misrepresentation, (6) Fraud,

(7) Rescission, (8) Quasi Contract, and (9) Determination of Validity of Lien. Id. at 1. On

Case 3:09-cv-00737-WQH-BLM Document 25 Filed 04/13/10 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

- 2 - 09cv737 WQH (BLM)

September 24, 2009, Countrywide Home Loans filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended

Complaint. (Doc. # 9). 

The Court granted the motion on January 20, 2010 and dismissed the FAC as to

Countrywide Home Loans. (Doc. # 18). The order allowed Plaintiff to file a motion for leave

to amend within thirty days of the date of the order. Id. at 8. On the same day, the Court also

issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed as to New Century

Mortgage Corporation, San Diego County Real Estate Services, and American Servicing

Company for failure to serve the complaint within the 120-day period allowed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. # 17). The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond on

or before February 15, 2010 with either: 

(1) proof of service of the summons and the Complaint to Defendants New

Century Mortgage Corporation, San Diego County Real Estate Services, and

American Servicing Company; or (2) a declaration under penalty of perjury

showing good cause for failure to timely serve New Century Mortgage

Corporation, San Diego County Real Estate Services, and American Servicing

Company, accompanied by a motion for leave to serve process outside of the

120 day period.

Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not file a response. On February 18, 2010, the Court dismissed the action

as to New Century Mortgage Corporation, San Diego County Real Estate Services, and

American Servicing Company. (Doc. # 19). 

On February 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint. (Doc. # 20). Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is

attached to the motion. (Doc. # 20 at 6). On March 22, 2010, Countrywide Home Loans filed

an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion which contends it should be denied because the proposed

SAC fails to cure the defects in the FAC and because the SAC fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. (Doc. # 23).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s proposed SAC names all of the original Defendants named in the FAC,

including New Century Mortgage Corporation, San Diego County Real Estate Services, and

American Servicing Company. (Doc. # 20 at 6). In her motion, Plaintiff requests an amended

summons as to American Servicing Company on the grounds that “ASC was not added as a

Case 3:09-cv-00737-WQH-BLM Document 25 Filed 04/13/10 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

- 3 - 09cv737 WQH (BLM)

Defendant until 120 days after the filing of the original complaint, and could not therefore be

served with the Complaint.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff does not, however, address the fact that the

Court also previously dismissed her claims against New Century Mortgage Corporation and

San Diego County Real Estate Service for failure to serve within the 120-day period allowed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See Doc. # 19.

Plaintiff’s request for an amended summons as to American Servicing Company is

denied. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on January 20,

2010. (Doc. # 17). Plaintiff’s FAC naming American Servicing Company as a defendant was

filed on September 4, 2009. (Doc. # 6). Plaintiff failed to serve her FAC on American

Servicing Company within 120 days of filing the FAC with the Court. Plaintiff has not offered

any evidence of good cause for failure to serve within the 120-day period allowed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) as required by the Court’s Order to Show Cause. See

Doc. # 17 at 2.

Because the proposed SAC names three defendants who were not timely served and

have been dismissed from the case, the Court will not permit Plaintiff to file the proposed SAC

to add these same defendants back into the case.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 20) is

DENIED. 

DATED: April 13, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00737-WQH-BLM Document 25 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 3