Opinion
2:21-cv-1088-TMC
10-04-2023
AMERICAN PACIFIC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a California corporation; and ELEMENT MORTGAGE, a division of AMERICAN PACIFIC MORTGAGE CORPORATION Plaintiff, v. EVERETT FINANCIAL, INC. d/b/a SUPREME LENDING; LUKE WELLING, an individual residing in Washington State; MATTHEW THOMAS, an individual residing in Washington State; ANDREW HOPKINS, an individual residing in Washington State; AUSTIN JAMES, an individual residing in Washington State; COREY CONDRIN, an individual residing in Washington State; DANIEL WON, an individual residing in Washington State; KIMBERLY BUNDRUM, an individual residing in Washington State; CINDEE WILSON, an individual residing in Washington State; JANE/JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE BUSINESS/CORPORATE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.
JOINT STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND ORDER
TIFFANY M. CARTWRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and LCR 15, Plaintiff and Defendants by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that Plaintiff be given leave of the Court to amend the complaint filed herein and the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND JURY TRIAL, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be filed within sixteen days of this stipulation being granted by the court.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 13, 2021 and subsequently served the Summons and Complaint on multiple Defendants. Subsequently, the court granted a motion to compel arbitration as to all the defendants, except for Supreme Lending and Luke Welling, and imposed a stay on the litigation until arbitration had concluded, sending the remaining defendants to arbitration. During arbitration, Plaintiff learned more facts pertaining to its claims, and determined to narrow its claims and parties, ultimately dismissing all of the defendants except for Supreme Lending and Luke Welling. The parties now stipulate and agree to amend Plaintiff's Complaint as reflected in the attached exhibit.
III. ARGUMENT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows for the amendment of pleadings with leave of the court, or with opposing counsel's written consent, before trial. The Rule further provides that “the court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit has instructed that this rule “should be interpreted with ‘extreme liberality,'” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)), and “[a]n outright refusal to grant leave to amend without a justifying reason is . . . an abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Constellation Brands, Inc., 2018 WL 991450, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2018) (quoting Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008)). A district court only has discretion to deny leave to amend “‘due to . . . repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.'” Id. at *2 (quoting Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 52 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) and Leadsinger, Inc., 512 F.3d at 532). An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when the amendment changes the party against whom a claim is asserted if the amendment asserts a claim that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out (or attempted to be set out) in the original pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(B).
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the parties respectfully seek the court's approval of this stipulation and allow Plaintiff to file the attached amended complaint within sixteen days of this stipulation being granted.
ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties in this matter, Plaintiff is grasnted leave to amend its Complaint. Plaintiff must file and serve the amended pleading on all parties within sixteen days of the filing of this order.