Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01547/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01547-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 10cv1547-WQH-RBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN M. PARK, MICHELLE PARK

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv1547-WQH-RBB

ORDER

vs.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB,

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE

CORPORATION, EXECUTIVE TRUST

SERVICES, CHICAGO TITLE

COMPANY PARK CAMINO BRANCH,

SHEPPARD RICHTER, DOES 1-10

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 83); Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Stay of Expungement of

Pendency of Action Pending Appeal (ECF No. 90); Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion to File

Supplemental Reply (ECF No. 99); and Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Strike Defendants

Surreply Pleading (ECF No. 106).

BACKGROUND

On July 26, 2010, Plaintiffs Sean M. Park and Michelle Park, proceeding pro se,

initiated this action by filing a Complaint. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs filed an Amended

Complaint on August 11, 2010. (ECF No. 3). 

On August 25, 2010, Well Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. 

(ECF No. 11). 

Case 3:10-cv-01547-CAB-RBB Document 111 Filed 04/13/11 Page 1 of 5
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

 Plaintiffs requested a stay of the expungement of lis pendens pending the Ninth

Circuit’s decision regarding Plaintiffs’ appeal. On March 16, 2011, the Ninth Circuit

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and mandate was issued. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte

Application for Stay of Expungement of Pendency of Action Pending Appeal (ECF No. 90)

is DENIED as moot. 

2

 Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to File Supplemental Reply (ECF No. 99) is GRANTED.

The Court will consider Plaintiffs’ supplemental Reply. 

3

 “The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (f). There are no grounds

to strike the Surreply. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Strike Defendants Surreply (ECF No.

106) is DENIED. 

- 2 - 10cv1547-WQH-RBB

On January 5, 2011, Defendant Wells Fargo filed an Ex Parte Motion to Expunge

Notice of Pendency of Action, or Alternatively, to Require Plaintiffs to Post a Bond. (ECF

No. 76). 

On January 12, 2011, this Court issued an Order dismissing each of Plaintiffs’s

claims against Defendant Wells Fargo and permitting Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to

file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 78). 

On January 26, 2011, this Court issued an Order granting Defendants’ Ex Parte

Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action and allowing Defendant to file a motion

for attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 85). On that same day, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to

File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 83). 

On January 27, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order granting

expungement of the lis pendens to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 86). On

that same day, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Stay of Expungement of

Pendency of Action Pending Appeal.1

 (ECF No. 90). 

On February 22, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion to File Supplemental

Reply.2

 (ECF No. 99). On March 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion to Strike

Defendants Surreply Pleading.3

 (ECF No. 106).

On March 16, 2011, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

(ECF No. 107). On April 7, 2011, mandate was issued by the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No.

110). 

DISCUSSION

Case 3:10-cv-01547-CAB-RBB Document 111 Filed 04/13/11 Page 2 of 5
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 - 10cv1547-WQH-RBB

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that the court “should

freely give leave [to amend] 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 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.’

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

Cir. 2004) (citing Foman factors).

“Not all of the [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 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.

Plaintiffs have filed a proposed second amended complaint that adds Deborah

Eisenbraun, sales agent for Wachovia Mortgage, FSB; Tiffany Duke, loan counselor for

Wachovia Mortgage Corp.; and Attorney Mark G. Rackers, who represents Defendant Well

Fargo Bank in this matter, as defendants. 

Plaintiffs contend that the proposed second amended complaint “in no way alters the

underlying claims set forth in the original Complaint nor otherwise substantially alters the

content of the original Complaint, other than causes of action relating to events that

occurred subsequent to filing of the original complaint.” (ECF No. 83 at 2). Plaintiffs

contend that the proposed second amended complaint “adds additional details provided by

Case 3:10-cv-01547-CAB-RBB Document 111 Filed 04/13/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 10cv1547-WQH-RBB

exhaustive legal research, supportive audits and investigat[ions], and plaintiffs’

consultations with expert witnesses ....” Id. 

Defendant contends that “(1) Plaintiff’s attempt to add new defendants is done in

bad faith; (2) Plaintiffs fail to cure the fatal flaws of their first amended complaint; and (3)

amendment is futile.” (ECF No. 97 at 5). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have not

alleged any factual basis to allege a claim against these new defendants and “is simply an

attempt to harass and intimidate these individuals.” Id. at 6. Defendant contends that

Plaintiff’s claims are defective, and Plaintiff has already had two prior attempts at

sufficiently stating a claim. 

After consideration of the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that

Defendant has not made showing of the Foman factors to sufficient overcome the

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital,

316 F.3d at 1052. The Court will defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the

proposed third amended complaint until after leave to amend is granted and 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 of Rule 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 pleading is

filed.”).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 83) is GRANTED. No later than fifteen days from the

date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as

Exhibit I to Plaintiffs’ Motion. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Stay of Expungement

of Pendency of Action Pending Appeal (ECF No. 90) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs’ Ex

Parte Motion to File Supplemental Reply (ECF No. 99) is GRANTED. 

//

Case 3:10-cv-01547-CAB-RBB Document 111 Filed 04/13/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 10cv1547-WQH-RBB

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Strike Defendants Surreply (ECF No. 106) is DENIED. 

DATED: April 13, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01547-CAB-RBB Document 111 Filed 04/13/11 Page 5 of 5