Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02531/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02531-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332rp Diversity-Real Property

---

1

18cv2531-WQH-RBB

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

MARY D. GUZMAN, an 

individual; LUIS GUZMAN, an 

individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE 

LLC; WILMINGTON TRUST, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM 

PLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2531-WQH-RBB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second 

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 30). 

I. Background

On June 11, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29). 

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.

(ECF No. 30). No opposition has been filed. 

II. Legal Standard

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 

Case 3:18-cv-02531-WQH-RBB Document 32 Filed 08/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2531-WQH-RBB

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

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th 

Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should 

consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “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, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 

182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“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. “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.

III. Decision of the Court

Defendants did not file opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second 

Amended Complaint. The Court finds that there has been no showing that any of the 

Foman factors warrants deviating from the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of 

granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30) is 

GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file the proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30-

1) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order.

Dated: August 12, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02531-WQH-RBB Document 32 Filed 08/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2