Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02876/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02876-12/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 RE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED ANSWERS

Re: Dkt. No. 187, 190

On April 8, 2015, Defendants Richard C. Lehman and Michele D. Koo filed a motion for 

leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s April 1, 2015 order dismissing Defendants’ 

counterclaims. [Docket No. 187 (Apr. 1, 2015 Order).] 

In their motion, Defendants assert that the court should reconsider its order dismissing 

their counterclaim for quiet title. In its April 1, 2015 order, the court held that the exception to the

tender requirement that applies when the borrower attacks the validity of the underlying debt did 

not apply in this case. This is because “Defendants do not challenge the validity of any of the 

Bonhomme loan documents or the loan itself.” (Apr. 1, 2015 Order 10.) Defendants now argue 

that they do in fact challenge the validity of the Bonhomme loan documents and the Bonhomme 

loan itself, in addition to the validity of the Deed of Trust. Therefore, Defendants contend, they 

are not required to tender payment on the loan before seeking to quiet title. (Mot. for Recons. 4-

5.) Defendants point to affirmative defenses seven through fifteen, and eighteen through 

nineteen,

1

to support their position that they “specifically allege that the Bonhomme loan 

 

1

The affirmative defenses are breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (seventh); 

duress (eighth); waiver (ninth); estoppel (tenth); unclean hands (eleventh); waiver, estoppel and 

unclean hands (twelfth); unjust enrichment (thirteenth); recoupment (fourteenth); lack of 

consideration (fifteenth); illegal tying arrangement (eighteenth); and fraudulent concealment of a 

consent decree (nineteenth). 

Case 4:13-cv-02876-DMR Document 195 Filed 04/13/15 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

documents are void and/or unenforceable.” (Mot. for Recons. 4.) 

On April 10, 2015, after Defendants filed this instant motion, the court granted Plaintiff’s 

motion to strike twelve of Defendants’ remaining affirmative defenses, including affirmative 

defenses seven through fifteen and eighteen through nineteen. [Docket No. 193.] Therefore, the 

affirmative defenses that form the basis for Defendants’ position are no longer operative. 

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT.

In its April 1, 2015 order dismissing Defendants’ counterclaims, the court granted 

Defendants leave to move to amend the counterclaims by April 8, 2015. In their April 8, 2015 

motion for leave to file amended answers, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims (Docket No. 

188), Defendants sought leave to amend only with respect to their counterclaim for slander of title. 

They did not move for leave to amend the quiet title and declaratory judgment counterclaims in 

accordance with the court’s order. However, in their proposed amended answers, affirmative 

defenses, and counterclaims, they inexplicably included the previously-dismissed counterclaims 

for quiet title and declaratory judgment, even though they did not move to amend these 

counterclaims. For the reasons discussed in the court’s April 8, 2015 order (Docket No. 190), 

Defendants’ motion to amend the slander of title counterclaim was denied. Defendants did not 

move to amend the quiet title and declaratory judgment counterclaims in conformance with the 

court’s order. To clarify, there are no remaining operative counterclaims in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 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 195 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 2