United States District Court, D. Nevada
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the court is plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s
motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 46),
filed on July 23, 2018. Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC
filed a response (ECF No. 47) on August 6, 2018. Plaintiff
filed a reply (ECF No. 48) on August 13, 2018.
case arises from defendant Mesa Homeowners Association's
foreclosure sale of real property to defendant. (Compl. (ECF
No. 1).) Plaintiff claims that at the time of the foreclosure
sale, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(“Freddie Mac”) owned the deed of trust, and that
plaintiff appeared as the beneficiary. (Id.) This
court issued a scheduling order on April 19, 2018, providing
May 15, 2018 as the deadline for the parties to file any
motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties. (Scheduling
Order (ECF No. 33).) Plaintiff now moves to amend its
complaint to add support to its first cause of action, which
alleges that the foreclosure sale did not extinguish Freddie
Mac's ownership of the deed of trust. (Mot. for Leave
(ECF No. 46).) Defendant responds that plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate good cause warranting the extension of the
discovery deadline. (Resp. (ECF No. 47).) Plaintiff replies
that leave to amend should be liberally granted and that its
proposed amended complaint does not alter the nature of this
case or the relief requested. (Reply (ECF No. 48).)
general rule, “a party may amend its pleadings once as
a matter of course” within twenty-one days of service,
or within twenty-one days after service of a responsive
pleading or motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party must obtain the
opposing party's consent or leave of the court.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The court has broad discretion to
grant or deny leave to amend, but should grant leave when
“justice so requires.” Id.; see also
Mir v. Fosburg, 646 F.3d 342, 347 (9th Cir. 1980). The
court may consider “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice
to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the
plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”
United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984,
995 (9th Cir. 2011).
once the court issues a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court
must first apply the governing “good cause”
standard. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
975 F.2d 604, 607-608 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause
standard “primarily considers the diligence of the
party seeking the amendment.” Id. In addition,
the carelessness of the party “is not compatible with a
finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of
relief.” Id. at 609.
Johnson, the Ninth Circuit applied Rule 16's
good cause standard when the plaintiff moved to amend his
complaint to add an additional party, rather than making a
specific request to amend the scheduling order. See
975 F.2d at 608-09. There, the court held that plaintiff had
not demonstrated good cause when he failed to heed signs that
not all parties were named in the action. Id. at
609. Further, the court noted that plaintiff held the burden
to properly prosecute his case, and his failure to pay
attention to the discovery responses is the same type of case
management issue Rule 16 seeks to cure. Id. at 610.
plaintiff has not specifically requested a modification of
the scheduling order, a motion to amend the pleadings after
the court-ordered deadline is a de facto request to modify
the scheduling order. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at
608-09. Given that the scheduling order provided May 15, 2018
as the deadline to amend the pleadings, the court will
evaluate plaintiff's motion according to Rule 16's
good cause standard.
reviewed plaintiffs motion, the court finds that plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate good cause. The scheduling order
states that May 15, 2018 was the deadline to amend the
pleadings or to add parties. Plaintiff then filed this motion
to amend the complaint on July 23, 2018, after the deadline
to amend and less than a month before the close of discovery.
Plaintiffs motion does not specifically address the good
cause standard, nor does the motion provide a reason for the
delay. Given that plaintiff has failed to identify good cause
to extend the deadline, the court will recommend the request
THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that plaintiff Bank of America,
N.A.'s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF
No. 46) be DENIED without prejudice.
report and recommendation is submitted to the United States
district judge assigned to this case under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and
recommendation may file a written objection supported by
points and authorities within fourteen days of being served
with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a).
Failure to file a timely objection may ...