1Gilroy added Citi as a defendant in an amended complaint

filed on June 23, 2008, after she allegedly received notice from

Citi that it held a mortgage on her property. The parties aver

that Citi’s parent corporation purchased AMC Services,

Ameriquest’s debt servicing corporation, and thereafter became

Ameriquest’s new loan servicer.

2The defendants did not move for summary judgment on the

harassment claim.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rosemary A. Gilroy

v. Civil No. 07-cv-74-JD

Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al.

O R D E R

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Rosemary A. Gilroy

brought suit against Ameriquest Mortgage Company (“Ameriquest”),

Ameriquest Mortgage Company Mortgage Services, Inc. (“AMC

Services”), and Citi Residential Lending, Inc. (“Citi”), alleging

predatory lending practices in violation of New Hampshire law.1

On February 20, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor

of the defendants on Counts I, II, III, IV, and VI of Gilroy’s

amended complaint (“summary judgment order”), leaving Gilroy’s

claim for harassment in violation of New Hampshire Revised

Statutes Annotated 358-C as the only remaining claim in this

case.2

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 121 Filed 04/28/09 Page 1 of 4
2

Trial was scheduled for March 17, 2009. At a pretrial

conference held on March 9, 2009, the court rescheduled the trial

until May 11, 2009, at Gilroy’s request. During the pretrial

conference, Gilroy submitted an untimely motion for

reconsideration of the court’s order on summary judgment. The

court accepted Gilroy’s untimely filing. After reviewing her

motion, the court denied it on March 16, 2009. Gilroy then

submitted an amended, and untimely, motion for reconsideration,

which the court reviewed and denied by order dated March 24,

2009.

Before the court is Gilroy’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint, submitted on April 23, 2009, and Citi’s motion

for judgment on the pleadings, submitted on April 24, 2009.

I. Gilroy’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

Gilroy requests permission to file an amended complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, based upon her

discovery of new legal theories against the defendants. 

A scheduling order was issued by the court on February 28,

2008 (document no. 37), which set a December 5, 2008, deadline to

amend the pleadings. By order dated October 6, 2008, the court

extended all the deadlines within the scheduling order by thirty

days. Accordingly, motions to amend the pleadings in this case

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 121 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 4
3Given that a scheduling order has issued in this case, Rule

15 does not apply. See O’Connell v. Hyatt Hotels, 357 F.3d 152,

154-55 (1st Cir. 2004).

4The court notes that it denied a similar untimely motion

filed by the defendants in an order dated March 3, 2009.

3

were due on or before January 5, 2009.3 The deadline to amend

the pleadings thus expired over three and one half months ago.

Trial is scheduled to begin on May 11, 2009. Gilroy has not

shown good cause for allowing her untimely motion, which asserts

legal theories that have always been available to her, and which

would require the trial to be rescheduled.4 Her motion to amend

her complaint is therefore denied.

II. Citi’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Citi moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Citi notes that the only

remaining claim in this case is for harassment and argues that

this claim was not alleged against it in Gilroy’s amended

complaint.

On February 20, 2009, the court issued an order granting the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts, save Count

V, which alleges a claim of harassment against Ameriquest and AMC

Services. Since the remaining harassment claim was not brought

against Citi, Citi’s status as a party to this case was

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 121 Filed 04/28/09 Page 3 of 4
4

terminated with the dismissal of the other claims on summary

judgment. Citi’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is

therefore terminated. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Gilroy’s motion to amend

(document no. 115) is denied and Citi’s motion for judgment on

the pleadings (document no. 118) is terminated. There are no

claims pending against Citi, which is no longer a defendant in

this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 28, 2009

cc: Rosemary A. Gilroy, pro se

Thomas C. Tretter, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 121 Filed 04/28/09 Page 4 of 4