Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00819/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00819-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MILAN STEJIC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC;

SHELTER MORTGAGE CO., LLC;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;

JOHN DOES 1-100, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-819-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Milan Stejic’s (“Stejic”) Motion for Leave to

Amend Original Complaint. (Dkt. # 39.) Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC (“Aurora”)

has responded, and Stejic has replied. (Dkt. ## 43, 44.) For the following reasons, the Court

grants the Motion.

BACKGROUND

Stejic filed his Complaint on April 17, 2009, alleging various federal and state claims

relating to unfair lending and debt collection practices. On May 14, 2009, Defendant Shelter

Mortgage Co., LLC (“Shelter”) filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More

Definite Statement. (Dkt. # 14.) On the same day, Aurora and Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) also filed a joint Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 16.)

However, none of the Defendants filed an Answer to Stejic’s Complaint. 

Case 2:09-cv-00819-GMS Document 45 Filed 09/11/09 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

1

 Amendments to Rule 15 are not effective until December 1, 2009. The amended

Rule 15(a)(1) provides, “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is

required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion

under Rule 12(b), (3), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)

- 2 -

Stejic now seeks to amend his Complaint to “add specificity and to allege new facts

that have come to light,” “to provide a more definite statement as sought, to delete three

claims and to substitute two claims,” “to correct[] the misnomers for Defendants Aurora and

MERS,” and to dismiss Quality Loan Services from the case. (Dkt. # 39.)

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)–(2) provides:

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as

a matter of course:

(A) before being served with a responsive pleading; or

(B) within 20 days after serving the pleading if a responsive pleading is not

allowed and the action is not yet on the trial calendar.

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should

freely give leave when justice so requires.

For purposes of Rule 15(a)(1), a responsive pleading includes an answer, or a reply to an

answer, but not a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (listing allowed pleadings as a complaint,

an answer to a complaint, an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim, an

answer to a crossclaim, a third-party complaint, an answer to a third-party complaint, and a

reply to an answer). 

Under the applicable version of Rule 15,1

 “[s]erving a responsive pleading

terminate[s] the right to amend,” but “[s]erving a motion attacking the pleading [does] not

terminate the right to amend, because a motion is not a ‘pleading’ as defined in Rule 7.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2009 Amendments. “[L]eave to amend

should be granted as a matter of course, at least until the defendant files a responsive

Case 2:09-cv-00819-GMS Document 45 Filed 09/11/09 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 -

pleading. After that point, leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause

prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.”

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added).

II. Analysis 

Shelter contends the Court should deny amendment because Stejic requested

amendment with a dilatory motive, anticipating a possible adverse ruling on Shelter’s motion

to dismiss, and because Stejic’s amendments would be futile. (Dkt. # 43.) Because Rule

15(a) is so clear in allowing a party to amend as a matter of course before a responsive

pleading is filed, however, and because Stejic’s motion at least alludes to this argument, the

Court will construe Stejic’s motion as a notice of amendment as a matter of course. 

Because none of the defendants has filed an answer, Stejic may amend his Complaint

as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Court would analyze dilatory motives

and futility only if Stejic could not do so. Shelter cites multiple cases, but none of these

cases holds courts should deny amendment as a matter of course for reason of dilatory

motive or futility; rather, the cases analyze dilatory motive and futility only as they relate to

amendments not made as a matter of course. See, e.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962);

Rusyniak v. Gensini, 629 F. Supp.2d 203 (N.D.N.Y. 2009); PI, Inc. v. Quality Products, Inc.,

907 F. Supp. 752 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Reisner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 511 F. Supp. 1167

(D.C.N.Y. 1981). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave To Amend Original

Complaint (Dkt. # 39) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to file the Lodged

First Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 42).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED terminating the Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. ## 14, 16,

38) as moot.

DATED this 11th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00819-GMS Document 45 Filed 09/11/09 Page 3 of 3