Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02060/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02060-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

Michael Grady; Jennifer Grady, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Bank of Elmwood; Elmwood Financial

Corporation; Jonathan Levin; Sarah Levin,

Defendants. _________________________________

Tri City National Bank,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Michael Grady and Jennifer Grady,

Counterdefendant. _________________________________

The Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation as Receiver for Bank of

Elmwood,

Intervenor.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2060-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a motion to strike two claims from Plaintiffs’ Second

Amended Complaint. Defendant Tri City National Bank (TCNB) argues that all claims

against it should be dismissed because the Court, on futility grounds, denied Plaintiffs’

motion to amend to add additional claims against TCNB (the Court allowed amendment as

to other claims). Thus, TCNB argues that the Second Amended Complaint, which includes

Case 2:11-cv-02060-JAT Document 122 Filed 12/14/12 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

1

 The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 1-2 at 1) and notes that

TCNB is not named as a Defendant.

- 2 -

claims against it, runs afoul of the Court’s order.

Plaintiffs respond and argue that the First Amended Complaint had claims against

TCNB. Plaintiffs argue that the Second Amended Complaint reasserts those claims from the

First Amended Complaint, but does not add new claims that the Court did not allow when

the Court denied leave to amend. Plaintiffs go on to argue that the Court denying leave to

amend to add new claims against TCNB did not operate to dismiss the claims against TCNB

that were listed in the First Amended Complaint.

TCNB replies and argues that the claims in the First Amended Complaint which

Plaintiffs argue survived the motion to amend were claims against Bank of Elmwood. TCNB

acknowledges that it acquired some of the Bank of Elmwood’s assets from the Federal

Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) after the FDIC took the Bank of Elmwood into

receivership, but TCNB denies that it and Bank of Elmwood are one and the same for

pleading and liability purposes.1

 Further, TCNB notes that the FDIC, not TCNB, moved to

be substituted for the Bank of Elmwood.

The Court finds that Bank of Elmwood and TCNB are not one and the same. Thus,

any claims against Bank of Elmwood in the First Amended Complaint do not continue to the

Second Amended Complaint as claims against TCNB. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the claims against TCNB listed in the Second

Amended Complaint are dismissed, and TCNB is dismissed as a Defendant. Thus, the

motion to strike (Doc. 57) is granted as to TCNB only.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02060-JAT Document 122 Filed 12/14/12 Page 2 of 2