United States District Court, D. Nevada
ELIZON MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST 1, U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS OWNER TRUSTEE, Plaintiff,
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 8920 EL DIABLO, et al., Defendants.
C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is plaintiff Elizon Master Participation
Trust I, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Owner
Trustee's (“Elizon”) motion to amend its
amended complaint. (ECF No. 26). No opposition to this motion
has been filed. Also before this court is cross-defendant
Hampton & Hampton Collections LLC's
(“H&H”) motion for summary judgment against
cross-claimant Silverstone Ranch Community Association
(“Silverstone”). (ECF No. 29). Silverstone filed
a response (ECF No. 32), but H&H did not enter a reply.
Motion to amend the first amended complaint
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states: “[A] party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave. The court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.” Moreover,
“[a] district court determines the propriety of a
motion to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four
factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing
party, and/or futility.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp.,
Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).
“this determination should be performed with all
inferences in favor of granting the motion.”
Id. “Where there is a lack of prejudice to the
opposing party and the amended complaint is obviously not
frivolous, or made as a dilatory maneuver in bad faith, it is
an abuse of discretion to deny [a motion to amend].”
Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190-91 (9th
states that the proposed second amended complaint will
“add a cause of action for misrepresentation based on
acceptance of the payment of the super-priority portion of
the lien. It also alleges additional facts related to all of
Elizon's causes of action.” (ECF No. 26 at 5-6).
Plaintiff also asserts that it offers the new complaint in
order to “streamlin[e] adjudication of common facts and
related issues.” (Id.).
light of these assertions, the lack of opposition, and upon
the court's review of the proposed second amended
complaint, the grant will grant this motion. Plaintiff must
file its new complaint within seven days of the date of this
Motion for summary judgment
this court considers H&H's motion for summary
judgment as to some of Silverstone's crossclaims. (ECF
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose
of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims . . . .” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323- 24 (1986).
purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should
be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the
non-moving party must “set ...