Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00773/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00773-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patricia Blau, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

America’s Servicing Company, BNC

Mortgage, Inc., and CIT Group, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-773-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Plaintiff pro se has filed a Motion to Join Parties. Plaintiff seeks to add U.S. Bank and

Lehman Brother, Inc., as Defendants in the instant case. In her Motion, Plaintiff states that

she seeks to join these Defendants pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. However, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s Motion as a Motion to Amend her

Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be

freely given when justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad

faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of

amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely

given.”

Case 2:08-cv-00773-MHM Document 25 Filed 08/18/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). The Ninth Circuit

has summarized these factors to include the following: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3)

prejudice to the opponent; and (4) futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty.

Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984). Granting or denial of leave to amend rests

in the sound discretion of the trial court. Swanson v. United States Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339,

343 (9th Cir. 1996). Despite the policy favoring amendment under Rule 15, leave to amend

may be denied if the proposed amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal. Saul

v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff seeks to add two Defendants to her case. The Court does not find undue

delay, bad faith, prejudice to the opponent, or futility in Plaintiff’s request. Therefore, the

Court hereby grants Plaintiff’s Motion and directs Plaintiff to file a Second Amended

Complaint that includes these new Defendants. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend her Complaint (Doc. 22). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file the Second Amended

Complaint within five days of the date of the this Order. This Second Amended Complaint

must be retyped in its entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original or First

Amended Complaint by reference. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to serve all Defendants with a copy

of the Second Amended Complaint within 7 days of the date of this Order.

DATED this 15th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00773-MHM Document 25 Filed 08/18/08 Page 2 of 2