Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02719/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02719-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT MARQUETTE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2719-WQH (JMA)

Order

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., f/k/a

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., an

entity of unknown form; FEDERAL

HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION S/A-3 DAY ARC125949, an entity of unknown form;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a

Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

filed by Plaintiff Scott Marquette. (ECF No. 14). 

I. Background

On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff Scott Marquette initiated this action by filing

a Complaint in this Court. (ECF No. 1). On March 3, 2014, Defendants Bank of

America, N.A. (“Bank of America”), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation S/A-3

day ARC-125949 (“Freddie Mac”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

(“MERS”) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 9). On July 30, 2014,

the Court granted the motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. (ECF No.

- 1 - 13cv2719-WQH (JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-02719-WQH-JMA Document 16 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 4
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

13). The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file a motion for leave to amend the

complaint. 

On August 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to Amend the

Complaint. (ECF No. 14). On September 29, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition. 

(ECF No. 15). 

II. Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff contends that Defendants will suffer no prejudice from amendment

because this action is in the early stages of litigation, discovery has not commenced, and

the proposed first amended complaint contains no new causes of action. Plaintiff

contends that the motion is brought within the time ordered by the Court. Finally,

Plaintiff contends that amendment would not be futile because the proposed first

amended complaint alleges additional facts that address the pleading deficiencies

identified in the Court’s July 30, 2014 Order. 

Defendants contend that they will suffer prejudice if amendment is granted

because the proposed first amended complaint is based on “identical allegations that

cannot support any valid cause of action” and would require Defendants to “be forced

to file yet another motion to dismiss.” (ECF No. 15 at 26). Defendant argues that there

was undue delay in filing the present motion because the proposed first amended

complaint does not contain any additional material allegations. Finally, Defendant

contends that amendment would be futile because the single additional factual

allegation in the proposed first amended complaint does not cure Plaintiff’s previous

failure to state a claim. 

III. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil 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 determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

- 2 - 13cv2719-WQH (JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-02719-WQH-JMA Document 16 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 4
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

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing

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.

After review of the motion, the proposed first amended complaint, and the filings

of the parties, 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

of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Plaintiff did not

unduly delay bringing the present motion. The Court’s July 30, 2014 Order stated that

Plaintiff had thirty days to file a motion for leave to amend; Plaintiff did so twenty-nine

days later on August 29, 2014. At this stage of the proceedings, Defendant would not

be prejudiced if Plaintiff were given a second chance to state a claim. 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 Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212

F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of the

challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is

granted and the amended pleading is filed.”). 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

- 3 - 13cv2719-WQH (JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-02719-WQH-JMA Document 16 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 4
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

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

is GRANTED. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint, as set

forth in Exhibit A of the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 14-1 at

12-43), with ten (10) days from the date this Order is filed. Defendants shall respond

to the First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date the First

Amended Complaint is re-filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 

DATED: October 3, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv2719-WQH (JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-02719-WQH-JMA Document 16 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 4