# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 13 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Kev in M. Mu rp hy and Kath le en K. Mur ph y , Ja m es L. Lang , Cha rle ne Ann Brad y , Erik a R. Hog en so n, Har ol d J . Tho m ps on , III,
Ju li an ne Tho m

ps on , Mir ia m

E. Sto ne , Je ffre y A. Kirs ch ba um , Tou A. Vang an d May K. Vang

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Aur or a Loa n S erv ic es , LLC, Auro ra Ba nk FSB,
Mo rtg ag e Ele ct ro ni c Reg is tra ti on Sy st em s, In c., Mer sc or p, In c., an d Wil fo rd & Ges ke , P.A.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 15 , 20 12 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 8, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , ARNOLD and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.The pl ai nt iff s are al l Mi nn es ot a ho m eo wne rs (“ Hom eo wne rs ”) who bo rro wed

m on ey fo r th e pu rp os e of pu rch as in g a ho m e. Each si gn ed a p r o mi s s o ry no te
, pr om is in g to r e p ay th e lo an

. As se cu rit y fo r th e pr om is e th ey ex ecu te d a m or tg ag e

on whi ch Mo rtg ag e Elec tro ni c Reg is tra ti on Sy st e ms , In c. (“ MERS” ) was th e 1

no m in al m or tg ag ee. The va rio us le nd ers ho ld in g th e Hom eo wne rs ’ pr om is so ry no te s
th en po ol ed

, se cu rit iz ed

, an d so ld th em in th e se co nd ary m ark et

. MERS su bs eq ue nt ly

as si gn ed each m or tg ag e to Aur or a Loa n Serv ic es , LLC an d Aur or a B a n k F SB (co ll ect iv el y “ Aur or a”). Afte r t he Hom eo wne rs de fau lt ed on th ei r rep ay m en t

ob li ga ti on s, Aur or a ret ai ne d th e le ga l se rv ic es of W il fo rd & Ges ke , P .A. (“ W &G”)

to ai d th em in fo recl os in g on th e pr op ert ie s pu rs ua nt to Mi nn es ot a’s fo recl os ur e-b y

ad ve rti se m en t st at ut e. The Hom e o w n e r s do no t co nt es t th e va li di ty of th ei r in it ia l

m or tg ag e ag reem en ts
, no r do th ey c o n te st th ei r su bs eq ue nt de fau lt s. Rat he r, th ey
al le ge th at ne it he r Aur or a no r MERS is en ti tl ed to fo recl os e on th e pr op ert ie s an d th at

W &G kn owi ng ly m ad e fal se rep res en ta ti on s reg ard in g Aur or a’s au th or it y to

fo recl os e.

In th ei r co m

pl ai nt in it ia ll y fil ed in st at e co ur t, th e Hom eo wne rs se t fo rth a ho st

of reas on s why Aur or a an d MERS la ck ed th e au th or it y to fo recl os e an d, am on g ot he r
cl ai m s, br ou gh t s u i t t o qu ie t ti tl e. Afte r Aur or a an d MERS rem ov ed th e act io n to

fed eral co ur t ba se d on th e al le ge dl y frau du le nt jo i n d e r o f W &G, th e di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed th e Hom eo wne rs ’ m ot io n to rem an d an d di sm is s e d a l l of th ei r cl ai m s wit h

pr ejud ic e. The di st ric t co ur t vi ewed th e co m pl ai nt as art ic ul at in g no th in g m or e th an

rep ack ag ed ve rs io ns of th e “ sh ow- m e-t he -n ot e” th eo ry , whi ch arg ue s th e ho ld er of

le ga l ti tl e to a m or tg ag e can no t fo r e c l o s e if he is un ab le to pr od uc e th e un de rlyin g

Hom eo wne rs al so su ed MERSC O RP

, In c. , the re co rd cu sto dia n fo r the sy ste m

. 1

“ MERS” refe rs co ll ect iv el y to bo th en ti ti es

. MERS in vo lv es an el ect ro ni c
reg is tra ti on syste m whe rei n le nd ers can tra ns fer in te res ts in pr om is so ry no te s to each

ot he r, whi le MERS rem ai ns th e m or tg ag ee of reco rd de sp it e th e as si gn m en t of th e de bt

. Se e Ja cks on v. Mor tg . El ec. Reg is tr at io n S y s ., In c. , 7 70 N.W .2d 48 7, 49 0- 91 (Mi nn . 20 09 ).

-2

-pr om is so ry no te

. Se e St ei n v. Ch as e Home Fin

., LLC

, 66 2 F.3 d 97 6, 97 8- 79 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ). The Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t de fin it iv el y reject ed th e vi ab il it y of th is th eo ry
in Ja cks on , a s we reco gn iz ed in St ei n

. Se e S te in , 66 2 F .3d at 9 79 -8 0; Ja cks on , 77 0

N.W .2d at 50 0- 01

. On ap pe al

, th e Hom eo wne rs co nt es t th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex erci se
of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . They al so in si st th ei r th eo rie s o f rec ov ery do no t ru n
afo ul o f J a c k s on be cau se th ei r ch al le ng es to th e au th or it y of Aur or a an d MERS to

fo recl os e are no t pr em is ed on a fai lu re to pr od uc e th ei r pr om is so ry no te s. W e affi rm
th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of W &G as frau du le nt ly joi ne d. W e pa rti al ly rev ers e as

to th e di sm is sa l of th e qu ie t-t it le cau se o f a c t io n, bu t we affi rm th e di sm is sa l wit h

pr ejud ic e o f al l o f th e Hom eo wne rs ’ rem ai ni ng cla im s.

I.

Alt ho ug h no m in al ly th e Hom eo wne rs la ck co m pl et e d i v e rs it y wit h W &G,

Aur o r a a n d MERS rem ov ed th is su it to fed eral co ur t ba se d on th e al le ge dl y
frau du le nt joi nd er of W &G. A pa rty ha s be en frau du le nt ly joi ne d if th ere is “ no

reas on ab le ba si s in fact an d la w” fo r th e cl ai m br ou gh t ag ai ns t it

. Fil la v. No rf ol k S. Ry. Co

. , 33 6 F.3 d 80 6, 81 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (q uo ti ng W il es v. Ca pi to l In de mni ty Co rp

. , 28 0 F.3 d 86 8, 87 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )). The do ct rin e of frau du le nt joi nd er al lo ws a
di st ric t co ur t to as su m e juri sd ic ti on ov er a faci al ly no nd iv ers e cas e te m po rari ly an d,

if th ere is no reas on ab le ba si s fo r th e im po si ti on of li ab il it y un de r st at e la w, di sm is s
th e no nd iv ers e pa rty fro m th e cas e an d ret ai n su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er th e

rem ai ni ng cl ai m s. Se e, e.g

. , Blo ck v. To yo ta Mot or Co rp

. , 66 5 F.3 d 94 4, 95 1 (8 th Ci r.
20 11 ). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at W &G was frau du le nt ly joi n e d

, a n d th e
Hom eo wne rs di d n ot ch al le ng e th is fin di ng in th ei r op en in g br ie f. W hi le we

ge ne ral ly wil l no t co ns id er arg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e in a rep ly br ie f, Bar ha m

v. Reli an ce St an da rd Li

fe In s

. Co

. , 44 1 F.3 d 58 1, 58 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), be cau se th is

ch al le ng e rel at es to ou r juri sd ic ti on , we wil l co ns id er th e m eri ts of th e cl ai m

. W e do

so un de r a de no vo st an da rd of r ev ie w. Blo ck , 66 5 F .3d at 9 47

.

-3

-Th e d i st ric t co ur t was co rrec t in de te rm in in g th at al l of th e Hom eo wn e r s ’

cl ai m s aga in st W &G la ck ed a reas on ab le ba si s in fact an d law, an d th eref or e W &G

was pr op erl y di sm is se d as frau du le nt ly joi ne d. W he re at to rn ey s act wit hi n th e sc op e
of the ir em

pl oym en t, Mi nn es ot a la w pr ov id es pr ot ect io n fro m li ab ili ty to thi rd pa rt ie s.
McDo na ld v. St ewa rt
, 18 2 N.W .2d 43 7, 44 0 (Mi nn

. 19 70 ). Abs en t kn owi ng

pa rti ci pa ti on in frau d, no ne of th e wor k pe rfo rm ed by W &G as fo recl os in g at to rn ey
fo r Aur or a can gi ve ris e to an act io na bl e cl ai m

. Se e id

. Min ne so ta co ur t ru le s, lik e
th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e, req ui re frau d to be pl ed wit h pa rti cu la rit y

. Se e
Mi nn

. R. Ci v. P. 9.0 2

. To pi erce W &G’s pr of es si on al i mm

un it y by ad eq ua te ly pl ead in g frau d, Hom eo wne rs m us t pl ead th e “ ul ti m at e fact s” of th e frau d, whi ch are
th e “ fact s un de rlyin g each el em en t of th e frau d cl ai m .” Har di n Cn ty

. Sa v. Ban k v.
Hou s. & Red

evel op men t Aut h. of Bra in er d

, No. A10 -1 85 4, 20 12 W L 40 94 35 0, at *6 (Mi nn . Sep t. 1 9, 2 01 2)

.

The Hom eo wne rs br ou gh t si x cl ai m s ag ai ns t W &G. Co un t X pl ead s ne gl ig en t

m is rep res en ta ti on , whi ch is “ an un in te nt io na l to rt th at do es no t co nt em pl at e an in te nt

to de cei ve on th e pa rt of th e pe rs on m ak in g th e m is rep res en ta ti on .” L& H Air co , In c.

v. Rap is ta n Co rp

. , 44 6 N.W .2d 37 2, 37 8 (Mi nn

. 19 89 ). The ve ry na tu re of th is cl ai m , th en , fai ls to im

pl ic at e an y kn owi ng pa rti c i p a t i o n i n frau d. Thre e ad di ti on al

co un ts —Co un t V Co nv ers io n, Co un t VII Ci vi l Co ns pi racy, an d Co un t XII Equ it ab le

Est op pe l— ru n in to th e in su rm ou nt ab le ob st acl e of st at in g on ly “ sh ow- m e-t he -n ot e”

cl ai m s t ha t h av e b een reject ed by Ja cks on

. 2

Co un t V al le ge s W &G ab et te d act s of co nv ers io n by Aur or a an d MERS 2
be cau se th es e en ti ti es “ were n ot en ti tl ed to en fo rce t he Orig in al Not es .” Co un t VII cl ai m s W &G en ga ge d in a ci vi l co ns pi racy to m is rep res en t th e st at us of Aur or a an d
MERS as “ ho ld ers in du e co ur se of th e Orig in al Not es en ti tl in g th em to fo recl os e on Pl ai nt iff s’ ho m es .” Co un t XII cl ai m s W &G rep res en te d th at Aur or a an d MERS he ld

“ va li d ti tl e to Pl ai nt i f

f s’ Orig in al no te s,” th ereb y in du ci ng so m e of th e pl ai nt iff s to fo reg o ch al le ng in g th e le ga l st an di ng of Aur or a an d MERS to ex ecu te fo recl os ur es

.

-4

-To th e ex te nt th e rem ai ni ng two co un ts ag ai ns t W &G av oi d rel y in g on “ sh owm e-t he -n ot e” by al le gi ng de fect s in th e as si gn m en t of le ga l ti tl e to th e Hom eo wne rs ’

m or tg ag es , th es e cl ai m s no ne th el es s fai l to ge ne rat e an act io na bl e ba si s for lia bi li ty

be cau se th ey do no t m eet th e he ig ht en ed pl ead in g st an da rd in Mi nn

. R. Ci v. P. 9.0 2.

Co un t IV al le ge s W&G com m it te d s la nd er of ti tl e an d Co un t XI as se rts a cl ai m for

frau d. Bo th of th es e cau se s of act io n co nt ai n an el em en t req ui ri n g t h e p la in ti ff to

ha ve su ffer ed da m ag es as a res ul t of th e de fen da nt ’s act io ns

. Dav is v. Re-Tr ac Mfg

. Co rp

. , 14 9 N.W .2d 37

, 38 -3 9 ( M in n. 19 67 ) (d efi ni ng th e el em en ts of frau d) ; Kel ly

v. Fir st St at e Ban k o

f Rot hs ay , 17 7 N.W

. 34 7, 34 7 (Mi nn

. 19 20 ) (d efi ni ng th e
el em en ts of sl an de r of ti tl e). The H om eo wne rs ha ve fai le d to pl ead wit h an y

sp eci fic it y th e fact s un de rlyin g th es e cl ai m s. Not hi ng in th e co m pl ai nt in di cat es ho w
th e Hom eo wne rs wou ld ha ve su ffer ed a di ffer en t fat e if th e su pp os ed ge nu in e reco rd

ho l d e r o f th e m or tg ag e ex ecu te d th e fo recl os ur e in pl ace of Aur or a. The re is no
al le ga ti on ex pl ai ni ng ho w W &G’s le ga l s e r v i c e s to Aur or a co ul d po ss ib ly ha ve

cau se d th e Hom eo wne rs an y da m ag e. In sh or t, the Hom eo wne rs fai le d to pl ead th e

“ ul ti m at e fact s” of an y frau d- ba se d cau se of act io n an d t hu s fa il ed to as se rt a cl ai m

a ga in st W &G un de r whi ch st at e la w m ig ht im po se li ab il it y

. W &G was pr op e r l y
di sm is se d a s fr au du le nt ly j oi ne d.

The Hom eo wne rs al so arg ue th e do ct rin e of pr io r ex cl us iv e ju r i s d i c t io n ba rs
th e di st ric t co ur t fro m ex erci si ng su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er an y of th ei r cl ai m s

ag ai ns t Aur or a, MERS, an d W& G. Se e Mar sh al l v. Mar

sh al l

, 54 7 U.S. 29 3, 31 1 (2 00 6) (ci ti ng “t h e g e n e r al pr in ci pl e th at
, whe n on e co ur t is ex erci si ng in re m juri sd ic ti on ov er a re s , a se co nd c o u r t wil l no t as su m e in re m juri sd ic ti on ov er th e

sa m e re s ”). “ W e rev ie w th e qu es ti on of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo .” Myer s

v. Rich la nd Cn ty

. , 42 9 F.3 d 74 0, 74 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Leav in g as id e th e qu es ti on of

w h e t he r an y of th e Hom eo wne rs ’ cl ai m s can be ch arac te riz ed as in re m or qu as i i n

re m , th e do ct r i n e d oe s no t ap pl y to rem ov al act io ns be cau se th e st at e co ur t lo se s juri sd ic ti on ov er a rem ov ed su it

. Se e W ar d v. Reso lu ti on Tr us t Co rp

. , 97 2 F.2 d 19 6,

-5

-1 9 8 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y fo un d th at it ha d su bjec t m at t e r

juri sd ic ti on

.

II.

The Hom eo wne rs arg ue th ei r qu ie t-t it le act io n rem ai ns vi ab le po st

- Ja cks on , 3

an d th ey co nt es t th e di sm is sa l of th is c l a i m a g ai ns t Aur or a an d MERS. A di st ric t 4

co ur t’s di sm is sa l of a cl ai m un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ) is su bjec t

t o d e no vo rev ie w. Levy v. Ohl , 4 77 F.3 d 98 8, 99 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). As pa r t o f t h i s

rev ie w we as su m e al l fact ua l al le ga ti on s in th e pl ead in gs are tru e an d in te rp ret th em

“ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” Cmty

. Fin

. Grp

., In c. v. Rep ub li c of

Ken ya , 66 3 F.3 d 97 7, 98 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The Hom eo wne rs ’ co m pl ai nt

so ug ht to qu ie t ti tl e ba se d on se ve n po te nt ia l de fect s in Aur or a or MERS’s ab il it y to

fo recl os e on th e m or tg ag es

. The di st ric t co ur t i n t erp ret ed each al le ge d im pa irment

as pr ecl ud ed by Ja cks on ’s reject i o n o f th e “ sh ow- m e-t he -n ot e” th eo ry an d

Mi nn es ot a p r o v i d e s a st at ut or y cau se of act io n fo r de te rm in in g “ ad ve rs e 3
cl ai m s” wit h re sp ect to lan d: “ Any p ers on in po ss es si on of r eal pro pe rty pers on al ly

or th ro ug h th e pe rs on ’s te na nt
, or an y ot he r pe rs on ha vi ng or cl ai m in g ti tl e to va can t

or un oc cu pi ed real pr op ert y , m ay br in g an act io n ag ai ns t an ot he r who cl ai m s an es ta te

or in te res t th erei n, or a li en th ereo n, ad ve rs e to th e pe rs on br in gi ng th e act io n, fo r th e
pu rp os e of de te rm in in g su ch ad ve rs e cl ai m an d th e rig ht s of th e pa rt ie s, resp ect iv el y .” Mi nn . Sta t. § 55 9.0 1 (2 01 2)

.

The co m pl ai nt in cl ud ed ad di ti on al cl ai m s ag ai ns t Aur or a an d MERS, bu t th e 4

Hom eo wne rs ha ve ab an do ne d th em

. Se e Co rma ck v. Se tt le -Bes he ar s , 47 4 F.3 d 52 8,
53 1 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ) (n ot in g t ha t a pa rty i s co ns id ered to ha ve ab an do ne d a n i ss ue if he fai ls to rai se a cl ai m

on ap pe al ). On e gr ou p of pl ai nt iff s, th e Mu rp hys, ob ta in ed

ne w co un se l fo r th is ap pe al an d di d c h a l l e ng e di sm is sa l of th e cl ai m s en ti tl ed

“ Defen da nt s Are Not Real Part ie s in In te res t” an d “ Defen da nt s Do Not Have Lega l
St an di ng to Fo recl os e Mo rtg ag es

. ” H ow ev er , the ir ob jecti on s are ba se d on arg um en ts

no t rai se d in th e di st ric t co ur t. W e ge ne ral ly do no t co ns id er arg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

, an d we de cl in e to do so he re. Se e Orr v. W al -Ma rt St or es , In c. , 29 7 F .3d 72 0, 7 25 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

-6

-co rres po nd in gl y di sm is se d th e qu ie t-t it le act io n. Man y of th e th eo rie s un de rlyin g th e

quiet -t itl e cl ai m ar e in de ed reg ur gi ta ti on s of th e “ sh ow- m e-t he -n ot e” th eo ry

. As su ch

,

we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th es e po rti on s of th e qu ie t-t it le act i o n w ere

pr op erl y di sm is se d. Se e But le r v. Ban k of Ameri ca , N.A.

, 69 0 F.3 d 95 9, 96 2 (8 th Ci r.
20 12 ).

Howev er, be cau se two of th e qu ie t-t it le th eo rie s do no t rel y on th e fai lu re of

th e fo recl os in g pa rty t o pr od uc e th e no te
, se e Co m pl . ¶ 57 (f), (g ), we co nc lu de th at

th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in it s wh ol es al e d is m is sa l o f th e q ui et -ti tl e cl ai m pu rs ua nt to

Ja cks on

. Und er th es e two th eo rie s, as si gn m en ts fro m MERS to Aur or a of le ga l ti tl e

to th e m or tg ag es ei th er were un reco rd ed or ex ecu te d by in di vi du al s la ck in g th e le ga l

au th or it y to do so

. The res ul ti n g d e f e c t i n th e ch ai n of ti tl e of th e m or tg ag es ,

acco rd in g to Hom eo wne rs , de pr iv es Aur or a of t h e a u t h or it y to fo recl os e on th ei r

pr op ert i es

. In co nt ras t to th e co m pl ai nt in But le r , th es e th eo rie s do no t rel y on th e
di sc red it ed “ sh ow- m e-t he -n ot e” th eo ry

. Neit he r pa rty pr ov id ed br ie fin g sp eci fic to 5

th e two rem ai ni ng qu ie t-t it le th eo rie s. Fo r in st an ce, i t i s no t cl ear whe th er th e
Hom eo wne rs st il l ha ve an y in t eres t in th e pr op ert ie s. Mi nn es ot a’s fo recl os ur e-b y

ad ve rti se m en t st at ut e ex pl ai ns th at on ce a sa le is reco rd ed an d th e t im e pe rio d fo r
red em pt io n ha s pa ss ed

, “ al l th e rig ht

, ti tl e, an d in te res t of th e m or tg ag or in an d to th e

pr em is es ” is co nv ey ed to th e pu rch as er. Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.1 2 (2 01 2) ; se e al so Her be r

v. Ch ri st op he rs on , 1 5 N

. W. 67 6, 67 7 (Mi nn

. 18 83 ). Fu rth erm or e, no pa rty ha s
di s c u ss ed whe th er th e Hom eo wne rs ’ in te res t is “ ad ve rs e” to th e in te res t he ld by

MERS or Aur or a fo r pu rp os es of th e qu ie t-t it le st at ut e, as Aur or a cl ai m s es se nt ia ll y

a se cu rit y in te res t in th e pr op ert ie s an d th e Hom eo wne rs ’ c o mp l a i n t co nc ed es th at

va l i d se cu rit y in te res ts in th e pr op ert ie s were crea te d an d tra ns ferr ed ou t of th e

The But le r pl ai nt iff

s so ug ht to qu ie t ti tl e an d co m pe l th e de fen da nt s to pr ov e 5
th ei r “ va li d a nd cle ar l eg al ti tl e to Pla in ti ffs ’ or ig in al pr om is so ry no te .” Co m pl ai nt

at 5

, Bu t l e r , 69 0 F.3 d 95 9 (No . 1 1- 26 53 ). In co nt ras t, th e Hom eo wne rs ’ qu ie t-t it le cl ai m do es no t ch al le ng e th e va li di ty of th e m or tg ag es he ld by Aur or a so le ly by

at ta ck in g Au ro ra’s i nt eres t i n t he un de rlyin g p ro m is so ry no te

.

-7

-H o meo wne rs ’ bu nd le of pr op ert y rig ht s. Alt ho ug h we m ay affi rm a di sm is sa l on

gr ou nd s no t rel ie d up on by th e di st ric t co ur t, whe re th e pa rti es di d n o t a d e q u a te ly

de ve lo p an is su e, rem an di ng to al lo w th e di st ric t co ur t t o a d d r e s s th e m at te r in th e
fir st in st an ce is ap pr op ria te

. Se e Reed er v. Ka n. Ci ty Bd. of Pol ic e Co m’rs

, 73 3 F.2 d

54 3, 54 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ). W e le av e th es e an d a ny oth er i ss ue s s ur ro un di ng th e two

rem ai ni ng qu ie t-t it le th eo rie s fo r th e d is tri ct co ur t t o a dd res s.

III.

The Hom eo wne rs req ue st th at we al te r th e di sm is sa l of th ei r rem ai ni ng cl ai m s

to be wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. “ A d is tri ct co ur t do es no t ab us e it s d i s c r e t i o n in fai li ng to

in vi te an am en de d co m

pl ai nt whe n pl ai nt iff ha s no t m ov ed to am en d

. . . .” Ca rl so n

v. Hyu nd ai Mot or Co

. , 16 4 F.3 d 11 60

, 11 62 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Fo ll owi ng th e di sm is sa l

of th ei r cl ai m s, th e Hom eo wne rs ne ve r so ug ht le av e to fil e an am en de d co m pl ai nt or

ot he rwis e i n d i c a t ed ho w th ey wou ld m ak e th e co m pl ai nt vi ab le

. Dis m is sa l wit h

pr ejud ic e is ap pr op ria te whe re a pa rty ne ve r “ su bm it te d a pr op os ed am en de d

co m pl ai nt or cl ari fie d wha t on e m ig ht ha ve c on ta in ed .” Pet Qua rt er s, In c. v. Dep os it or y Tr us t & Cl ea ri ng Co rp

. , 55 9 F.3 d 77 2, 78 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e fin d no

ba si s t o c on cl ud e an op po rtu ni ty to am en d wo ul d b e an y th in g b ut fut il e.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we pa rti al ly rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of

th e qu ie t-t it le cau se of act io n, affi rm th e di sm is sa l of th e re mai n i n g co un ts
, an d

rem an d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-