Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02876/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02876-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michele D. Koo
Counter-claimant
Richard C. Lehman
Counter-claimant
Simmons First National Bank
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD C. LEHMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02876-DMR 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED ANSWERS, AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Re: Dkt. No. 188

The court has received Defendants’ motion for leave to file first amended answers, 

affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. [Docket No. 188.] 

Defendants first seek leave to file an amended answer on behalf of Defendant Michele D. 

Koo in order to assert the affirmative defenses contained on page 13, which was inadvertently 

omitted from filing. Plaintiff has been on notice of these affirmative defenses despite their 

omission from Koo’s Answer because they were also asserted by Defendant Richard C. Lehman; 

therefore, it will not be prejudiced by permitting Defendants to correct the filing. Therefore, this 

portion of Defendants’ motion is granted. Koo is granted leave to file an amended answer to 

include the affirmative defenses of recoupment, lack of consideration, forgery and illegality 

regarding the Deed of Trust, and perjury and illegality regarding the Deed of Trust (affirmative 

defenses fourteen through seventeen) that her January 22, 2015 filing inadvertently omitted. 

Defendants shall file an amended answer in accordance with this order by April 10, 2015.

Defendants next seek leave to amend their slander of title counterclaim to allege that the 

March 27, 2013 assignment transferring the Deed of Trust from the FDIC to Plaintiff, which was 

recorded on April 9, 2013, constitutes an actionable publication. However, the court has already 

ruled on the issue of whether the assignment may form the basis for the slander of title claim and 

held that it is not an actionable publication. [See Docket No. 164 (April 1, 2015 Order on 

Case 4:13-cv-02876-DMR Document 190 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaims) at 7-8.] If Defendants are seeking 

reconsideration of the court’s April 1, 2015 order, they must comply with Civil Local Rule 7-9 

and seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and must specifically demonstrate one of the 

factors set forth in Local Rule 7-9(b). Therefore, Defendants’ motion to amend the slander of title 

counterclaim is denied without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:13-cv-02876-DMR Document 190 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2