N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KATHLEEN KAIPOLEIM ANU SILIGA, truste e of the Erle ne Luka La ha pa C a b rinha Living Trust da

te d Ja nua ry 29, 2009, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. DEUTSC HE B ANK NATIONAL TR UST C OM PANY, Truste e of the Ha rborvie w M ortga ge Loa

n Trust, Se rie s 2006-14 a nd ONEW EST B ANK, FSB , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16963 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-00318-SOM
RLP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Susa n Oki M ollwa

y , C h i e f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2016 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : GR

AB ER , B YB EE, a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAR 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pla intiff-a ppe lla nt Siliga 1 , a s truste e for the Erle ne C a brinha Living Trust, brought this ac tion a ga inst de fe nda nts-a ppe lle e s One W e st B ank a n d De utsc he B ank Na tiona l Trust C o m

pa ny (“ the B ank de fe nda

nts” ), se e king re s c ission of a de fa ulte d m ortga ge loa

n be c a use of a lle ge d unfa ir a

nd de c e ptive a c ts a

nd pra c tic e s c om m itte d by the m ortga ge broke rs (“ the Enloe de fe nda nts” ) and the origina l le nde r, Expre ss C a

pita l . Siliga a

ppe a ls (1) the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry of sum m ary judge m e nt in fa

vor of the B ank de fe nda

nts, a n d (2) the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of he r
m otion for le ave to a

m e nd the Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 16 sc he duling orde r to a l low he r to a

m e nd he r c om

pla int. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we AFFIRM
. 1. Sum m a ry Judgm e nt Sum m a ry judgm e nt is prope r whe re , vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost favora ble to the non-m oving pa

rty , the re is no ge nuine disputeof m a t e ria l fa c t a nd the m ova nt is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a m atte r of la

w. S e e , e .g. , Univ e rsal He alth Se rv s. v . Thompson , 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie wde novo. Id.

1 The pa rtie s have inform e d us tha t the truste e for the Erle ne C a brinha Trust wa s c ha nge d in Ja

nua ry 2012. Ac c ordingly , the C le rk’ s Offic e is dire c te d to substitute the c urre nt truste e , Kathle e n Siliga , for the form e r truste e and origina l pla i ntiff, Erle ne Ic him

ura . Fe d. R . App. P. 43(b).

2Siliga brings he r c la im

unde r Ha wa i i’ s Unfa ir a

nd De c e ptive Ac t s a

nd Pra c tic e s (UDAP) la

w. Ha w . R e v. Stat . § 480-2(a ). Siliga c la im s tha

t he r loa n is void ab initio be c a

use both theorigina l le nde r and the broke r m isre pre se nte d the te rm s of the loa

n. Id. § 480-12 (“ Any

c ontra c t or a gre e m e nt in viola tion of this
c ha pte r is void a

nd is not e n forc e a

ble at la wor in e quity .” ). She argue s tha t
m isc o nduc t by the broke rs, the Enloe de fe nda n ts, is a ttributa ble to the origina l le nde r, Expre ss C a

pita l , be c a

use the Enloe de fe nda

nts we re a c ting a s a g e n ts of Expre ss. Siliga ha s not ide ntifie d a

m a te ria l “ re pre s e ntation, omission or pra c tic e [] ” by Expre ss C a

pita l tha t wa s “ like ly

to m isle a d c onsum e rs a c ting re a sona bly unde r the c irc um s ta

nc e s.” C ompton v . C

ountryw i de Fin. C

orp. , 761 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th C ir. 2014) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting C

ourbat v . Dahana Ranc h, Inc
. , 141 P.3d 427, 427 (Ha

w . 2006)). The re is no e v ide nc e in the re c ord tha t c re a te s a ge nuine i ssue of fa c t a s to a g e nc y . Siliga ha s not de m onstra

t e d tha t the Enloe de fe nda n ts ha d the a

uthority to a c t on be ha lf of Expre ss, or tha t e ithe r Enloe or Expre ss e ve r re pre se nte d tha t this wa s the c a se to C a

brinha , the origina l borrowe r. Se e , e .g. , State

v . Hoshijo e

x re l. W hite , 76 P.3d 550, 561 (Ha w. 2003) (de fining
a c tua l a uthority); C

ho Mark Orie ntal Food, Ltd. v . K

& K Int’l , 836 P.2d 1057, 1062

3(Haw. 1992) (de fining a p pa re nt a uthority). Thus, Siliga

fa ile d to de m onstra

te any ge nuine d ispute s of m a te ria l fa c t, a nd sum m ary judgm e nt wa s prope r. In the a lte rnative , e ve n if the re we re an issue of fa c t re g arding theva l idity of the o rigina l loa

n, Siliga ’ s c om

pla int is la

t e unde r the a

pplic a ble sta tute of lim ita tions. Se e Haw. R e v. Stat. § 480-24(a). C a brinha kne wof a

UDAP viola

tion
a t or ne ar the tim e of the loa n, be c a use of the disc losure s m a de at or shortly a fte r c losing. Se e

, e . g. , Lizza v
. De utsc h e Bank N at’l Trust C

o. , 1 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1121 (D. Ha

w . 2014) (noting tha

t a c a use of a c tion a c c rue s unde r Hawa ii’ s UDAP la w whe n the viola

t ion oc c urs); ac c ord K

e r sh v . Manulife

Fin. C orp. , 792 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1122 (D. Ha

w. 2011); Mc

De v itt v . Gue nthe r , 522 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1289–90 (D. Ha

w . 2007). She fa ile d to file a c om pla i nt within the

four-y e ar lim ita tions pe riod. 2. R ule 16 M o tion to Am e nd B e c a use Siliga m ove d to a

m e nd the c o m

pla int a fte r the pre -tria l sc he duling orde r ha d be e n e nte re d, he r a bility to a m e nd the c om

pla i nt is gove rne d by

R ule 16, not R ule 15. R ule 16(b)(4) provide s tha

t a sc he duling orde r m ay be am e nde d only

“ for good c a

u se . ” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 16(b)(4). “Unlike R ule 15(a )’ s libe ra l
am e ndm e nt polic y

whic h foc use s on the ba d fa ith of thepa rty se e king to interpose
an am e ndm e nt . . ., R

ule 16(b)’ s ‘ good c a

use ’ sta nda rd prim arily

c onside rs the 4dilige n c e of the pa rty se e king theam e ndm e n t.” J ohnson v . Mammoth Re c r e ations, Inc
. , 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 1992). Thus, if the pa rty se e king the am e ndm e nt
wa s not diligent, the c ourt m ay de ny the m otion. Zivk

ov ic v . S. C

al. Edison C

o. , 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th C ir. 2002). W e re vie w the de nia l of the m otion to a m e nd the s c he duling orde r for a buse of disc re tion. Se e J

ohnson , 975 F.2d a

t 607. The distric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t Siliga wa s not diligent in se e king to a m e nd he r c o m

pla i nt. The fa c ts a

nd c la i m s tha

t Siliga wishe d to a d d to he r c om pla i nt we re k

n own to he r we ll in a dva

nc e of the am e ndm e nt de a dline , a nd she fa ile d to e ithe r se e k a

n am e ndm e nt or a sk for a n e xte nsion of the de a dline
. Se e , e .g. , Le arje t, Inc
. v . One ok , Inc
. (In reW

. State s W hole s aleN at. Gas Antitrust Litig.) , 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th C ir. 2013) (holding tha t distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion whe n it de nie d a m otion to a

m e nd, be c a

use pla intiff ha d known
e arlie r of fa c ts a

nd the o rie s supporting a

m e ndm e nt). The distric t c ourt the re fore did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing he r m o tion to a m e nd. AFFIR M ED.

5Siliga v. De utsc he B ank Na tiona l Trust C o., No. 13-16963 GR AB ER , C irc u it Judge , c o n c urring in pa rt: I a gre e with them a

jority e xc e pt for the first re a son for upholding sum m ary judgm e nt. B ut the c o m

pla int pla inly

is untim e ly
. 

# FIL ED MAR 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSSiliga v . De utsc he Bank N ational Trust C

o. , No. 13-16963 C hriste n, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring: The a ppe l le e s did not a

rgue in the distric t c ourt tha t UDAP’ s four-y e ar sta tute of lim ita

tions ba rre d pla intiff’ s UDAP re sc ission c la i m , so I would not
re a c h this issue . I a gre e tha t the distric t c ourt should be a ffirm e d be c a

use a ppe lla nt did not ra ise a ge n

uine issue of m a te ria l fa c t a s to a n a ge nc y re lationship be twe e n Expre ss C a

pita l a n d Enloe Ente rprise s. 

# FIL ED MAR 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS