Opinion ID: 6112311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Anderson’s Motion to Amend

Text: Anderson further argues the district court improperly denied his motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. He argues leave to amend was warranted under the liberal standard that courts “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, it is well established, at least in this circuit, that when a motion for leave to amend is filed after a complaint is dismissed, “interests of finality dictate that leave to amend should be less freely available.” U.S. ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2009). A court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for leave to amend when there are “compelling reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment.” Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up). Reviewing the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion and the issue of futility de novo, we agree with the district court that multiple “compelling reasons” justified denying Anderson’s motion. -6- First, the motion was procedurally defaulted. Anderson’s initial request to file an amended complaint was a “passing mention” in his opposition to U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss that failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1) and District of Nebraska Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(1)(a). When he finally filed a Rule 15 motion for leave to amend, it was untimely and failed to include a supporting brief, as the Local Rule required. See id. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, given Anderson’s “repeated failure to follow the local rules,” he “abandoned his motion for leave to amend.” Second, we agree with the district court that granting leave to amend would be futile because the proposed TAC relied on the same claims for setting aside the foreclosure sale based on non-compliance with “conditions precedent” that had been rejected in both state and federal court. “Futility constitutes a valid reason for denial of a motion to amend.” Ryan v. Ryan, 889 F.3d 499, 508 (8th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). As the district court observed, Anderson “has never adequately addressed . . . the Court’s rejection of [his] expansive reading of [Ryberg].” The Judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -7-