United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, Chief Judge.
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), (ECF No. 65), in which Magistrate
Judge Hoffman recommends that the Motion for Leave to Amend,
(ECF No. 46), filed by Plaintiff Bank of America, NA.
(“Plaintiff), be DENIED. Plaintiff
filed an Objection to the R&R, (ECF No. 68), and
Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”)
filed a Response, (ECF No. 73).
pending before the Court is the Renewed Motion for Leave to
Amend, (ECF No. 69), filed by Plaintiff. SFR filed a
Response, (ECF No. 72), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No.
reasons addressed below, Judge Hoffman's R&R is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full;
Plaintiff's initial Motion for Leave to Amend is
DENIED; and Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for
Leave to Amend is GRANTED.
brings this quiet title action against Mesa Homeowners
Association (“HOA”) and SFR Investments Pool 1,
LLC (“SFR”). (See Compl., ECF No. 1).
Relevant to the instant Motions, the parties' scheduling
order provides a May 15, 2018 deadline for amending the
pleadings and an August 13, 2018 discovery cut-off, (ECF No.
32). On July 23, 2018, Plaintiff moved to amend his
complaint, (ECF No. 46), seeking to add allegations that the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie
Mac”) owned the subject property at the time of the HOA
foreclosure sale. (Id.).
Hoffman recommends that Plaintiff's initial Motion be
denied for failure to “address the good cause
standard” or “provide a reason for the
delay.” (See R& R 3:1-7, ECF No. 65). The
instant Objection and Renewed Motion for Leave followed
shortly thereafter, (ECF Nos. 68, 69).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, then the court is required to “make a
de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.”
does not dispute any portion of the R&R and expressly
concedes its initial Motion failed to “address Rule
16's good cause standard, ” (Obj. 3:1-4, ECF No.
68). In place of a substantive objection, Plaintiff requests
the Court consider its Renewed Motion for Leave, (Obj.
3:5-7). Seeing no objection, the Court accepts and adopts in
full Judge Hoffman's R&R.
RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND