Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02874/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02874-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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

RAMIA SABHERWAL; DONALD T.H.

SMITH,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 3:11cv2874-WQH-BGS

ORDER

vs.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

fka THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT,

INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST

2005-62 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH

CERTIFICATES 2005-62; AND AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT,

INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST

2005-81, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES 2005-81

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.;

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC;

REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, SELECT

PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; AND

DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On January 8, 2013, the Court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants,

dismissed the first amended complaint without prejudice, and permitted Plaintiffs to file a

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint accompanied by the proposed second

amended complaint. (ECF No. 55).

- 1 - 11cv2874-WQH-BGS

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 63 Filed 04/18/13 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

On February 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 56). Plaintiffs state: 

Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint, without exhibits, is attached

hereto as Exhibit A, expands the claim for Negligence to include the conduct of

Defendants related to their handling of three separate attempts to obtain loan

modifications and adds claims for: Quasi-Contract; Violation of 12 USC 2605;

Violation of 12 USC 1692 et seq.; Violation of California Business &

Professions Code section 17200 et seq; Accounting; Violation of California

Civil Code section 2924.17(b) and additional facts.... The Negligence and

Quasi-contract claims are based on new information that Plaintiffs have learned

since the filing of their original complaint.

Id. at 2-3.

On February 25, 2013, Defendants filed oppositions to the Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 57-61). Defendants contend that the motion should

be denied because the proposed second amended complaint was filed without exhibits and the

proposed second amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief can be granted.

On March 3, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 62).

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 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 second amended complaint and the filings of

the parties, the Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong showing

- 2 - 11cv2874-WQH-BGS

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 63 Filed 04/18/13 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

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. The Court will defer consideration of any

challenge to the merits of the proposed second 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 challenges to the merits of a proposed amended

pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint is GRANTED. (ECF No. 56). Plaintiffs shall file the proposed second amended

complaint attached to the motion within ten days of the date of this Order.

DATED: April 18, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv2874-WQH-BGS

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 63 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 3