Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Royal Highlands Street and Landscape Maintenance Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 13, 2017

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Plaintiffs,
v.
ROYAL HIGHLANDS STREET AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon's (“BNYM”) motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 53). Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, (“SFR”) filed a response (ECF No. 54), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 56).

         Also before the court is plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 60).

         I. Background

         The parties are familiar with the facts of the case, as the court has already issued an order on defendant Royal Highlands Street and Landscape Maintenance Corporation's (“RHS”) motion to dismiss. See (ECF No. 52). In the court's order granting defendant RHS's motion to dismiss, the court stated “if BNYM wishes to request leave to file an amended complaint, it must do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.” Id.

         On August 16, 2017, fourteen days after the court's order granting defendant's motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint. (ECF No. 53). On November 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.[1] (ECF No. 57).

         II. Legal standard

         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 United States Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply when granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court explained:

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

         Further, Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Local Rule 15-1(a) states that “the moving party shall attach the proposed amended pleading to any motion seeking leave of the court to file an amended pleading.” LR 15-1(a).

         However, “a request for leave to amend made after the entry of a Rule 16 Scheduling Order is governed primarily by Rule 16(b), ” rather than Rule 15. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16(b) and Local Rules 6-1 and 26-4 require a showing of “good cause” before modifying a scheduling order. See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); LR 6-1; LR 26-4. Only when the movant establishes good cause to modify a scheduling order under Rule 16 does the court consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 15. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

         The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

         III. Discussion

         a. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.