United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiffs Presidio Adventures Development I ("Presidio I"); Presidio Adventures Development II ("Presidio II"); Stephen Slatton; Brian Chavez; Julie Gutierrez; and Rudy Guzman's (hereinafter "plaintiffs") motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 84). Defendants Countrywide Financial Corporation; Countrywide Bank, N.A. ("Countrywide Bank"); Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA"); ReconTrust Company, N.A.; and Mortgage Electronic Registration System (hereinafter "defendants") filed a response, (doc. # 85), and plaintiffs filed a reply, (doc. # 87).
Also before the court is plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. # 88). Defendants filed a response, (doc. # 89), and plaintiffs filed a reply, (doc. # 90).
The instant case arises from a mortgage dispute. Many issues that were initially the subject of the underlying action have been adjudicated by the court. Two issues remain in dispute: (1) whether defendants have been unjustly enriched and (2) whether titles to the properties in this action are marketable.
In 2008, the individual plaintiffs purchased two high rise condominiums, unit 25301 ("unit 1") and unit 26301 ("unit 2"), at Palms Place in Las Vegas. (Doc. # 20). The individual plaintiffs entered into two identical mortgage agreements with Countrywide Bank for $485, 485.00 each. On June 30, 2008, deeds of trust were recorded on unit 1 and unit 2. (Doc. # 1). On the same date, a second erroneous deed of trust was recorded for the mortgage on unit 2. ( Id. ).
On July 1, 2008, BANA became a successor by merger of Countrywide Bank. (Doc. # 41). As a result, BANA assumed all liabilities of Countrywide Bank, including the deeds of trust in the instant dispute. ( Id. ). In July of 2009, the individual plaintiffs transferred the titles to unit 1 and unit 2 to Presidio I and Presidio II. (Doc. # 1).
In January of 2011, the individual plaintiffs and BANA entered into a loan modification agreement. ( Id. ). The purpose of the agreement was to correct mistakes concerning the second erroneous deed of trust on unit 2 and create clear and marketable title. (Doc. # 1). However, the duplicate recordation was never corrected and there continued to be two deeds of trust recorded against unit 2. ( Id. ).
In or around August 2011, plaintiffs faced financial difficulties. As a result, plaintiffs began missing payments on their mortgages. (Doc. # 88). Plaintiffs attempted to sell, surrender, or short sale both units. Plaintiffs allege they were unsuccessful because they did not have clear marketable title due to the erroneous deed of trust on unit 2. ( Id. ).
Plaintiffs claim that they repeatedly notified defendants of the erroneous deed of trust and demanded that the recordation be fixed, to not avail. (Doc. # 41). Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to provide clear and marketable title prevented them from selling unit 1 and unit 2. (Doc. # 41). Plaintiffs further allege that defendants unjustly accepted over $300, 000 in monthly mortgage payments from plaintiffs, while never providing clear marketable title in return. (Doc. # 85).
On March 25, 2014, the court dismissed all claims by the individual plaintiffs but granted plaintiffs leave to pursue an unjust enrichment claim. The court issued a new scheduling order, setting a deadline of December 20, 2014, to amend or add claims and parties.
II. Legal Standard
a. Leave to amend
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal ...