Opinion ID: 68520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaints

Text: After the arbitration ruling, the Maduras moved for leave to amend their federal complaint to add claims relating to the “second contract,” i.e., the allegedly forged documents, with Countrywide and Full Spectrum. As to Mr. Madura, the district court denied the motion as moot because he had been ordered to arbitrate his claims. As to Mrs. Madura, the district court denied the motion as futile. The district court reiterated that all of the Maduras’ claims arose out of the same loan transaction and that their attempt to distinguish between a first and second contract was unpersuasive. Thereafter, the Maduras moved again for leave to amend their federal complaint. They re-alleged portions of their original complaint and included these additional claims: (1) spoliation of evidence; (2) rescission of the arbitration agreement based on fraud in the inducement; (3) TILA violations regarding a courier charge; (4) a state RICO claim; (5) a violation of the FCFA; and (6) a claim that the defendants ruined their credit. As to Mr. Madura, the district court denied the motion because he was required to arbitrate his claims and had delayed in asserting his fraud claim.3 As to Mrs. Madura, the district court denied the motion 3 The district court noted that Mr. Madura was seeking to add this claim over seven years after he signed the arbitration agreement and after the scheduling order had been entered, 8 because, inter alia: (1) res judicata barred her claims based on the loan transaction; (2) her ruined credit and FCFA claims were futile; (3) applicable statutes of limitations barred her rescission and TILA claims; and (4) she unduly delayed in asserting her state RICO, uttering and punitive damages claims.