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 America, N.A. v. Mesa Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 26, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
MESA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge.

         Pending 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).

         Also 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. 74).

         For the 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.).

         Judge 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).

         II. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         A. Legal Standard

         This 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.” Id.

         B. Discussion

         Plaintiff 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.

         III. RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

         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.