Ed Fogg et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05530
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ED FOGG et al., CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05530-DGE 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. LEAVE TO AMEND (DKT. NO. 19) 13 RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their 17 complaint. (Dkt. No. 19). Plaintiffs seek to add certain additional facts; make slight 18 amendments to their first and third causes of action; and, most notably, dismiss their second 19 cause of action and add a new cause of action based on Defendants’ alleged nonpayment of 20 Plaintiffs’ insurance. (Id.) For the reasons articulated herein, this motion is DENIED. 21 I BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiffs initially filed a complaint in state court on June 3, 2024, which was removed to 23 federal court on July 2, 2024. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court held a scheduling conference on October 24 18, 2024, setting, among other things, the deadline for amended pleadings on December 2, 2024 1 and discovery on July 14, 2025. (Dkt. No. 15.) On July 18, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ 2 request for an extension for discovery until September 12, 2025. (Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiffs did 3 not raise a desire to amend their complaint at this hearing. (Id.) As of July 7, 2025, Plaintiffs 4 were aware of the facts they cite as the basis for their proposed amendment. (See Dkts. 29 at 2–

5 3; 21-2 at 3–4.) 6 Six days after the amended deadline for the close of discovery, Plaintiffs filed a motion 7 for leave to amend their complaint. (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiffs seek to add a variety of new facts, 8 including the removal of the case to federal court (id. at 8), information about Rushmore being 9 acquired by Mr. Cooper/Nationstar (id. at 9), and information about Rushmore’s allegedly 10 improper servicing of Plaintiffs’ loan (id. at 9–10). Plaintiffs also make new allegations 11 Defendants “[c]reat[ed] a false or misleading principal balance on Plaintiffs’ loan,” improperly 12 assessed fees to and denied payments from Plaintiffs, and failed to pay Plaintiffs’ property 13 hazard insurance. (Id. at 12–13.) Plaintiffs seek to amend their first and third causes of action as 14 well as entirely rewrite their second cause of action. (Id. at 13–15.) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave

15 to amend has been fully briefed. (See Dkt. Nos. 28, 31.) 16 II DISCUSSION 17 A. Legal Standard 18 Typically, “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). While courts favor granting leaves to amend, five factors can lead 20 courts to deny such motions: “(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; 21 (4) futility of amendment; and (5) [if] the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” 22 Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 23 182 (1962) (“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith

24 1 or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 2 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 3 amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely 4 given.’”). But when the motion to amend requires changes to the scheduling order, the moving

5 party must also show good cause for the change. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 6 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Gonzales v. Lake Havasu City, 836 Fed. App’x. 554, 556 7 (9th Cir. 2020). 8 B. Analysis 9 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint would cause undue prejudice and delay without good 10 cause. Plaintiffs filed their motion approximately five months after they could have learned 11 about the alleged error through communications with their insurer, approximately two months 12 after they learned of the alleged error during a deposition, and approximately a week after the 13 close of discovery. Granting Plaintiffs’ request would require changes to the scheduling order, 14 including re-opening discovery and moving trial. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have denied

15 plaintiffs leave to amend in similar circumstances. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network 16 Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming a denial of a motion for leave when 17 the proposed amendment had been considered for three months before filing); Waters v. 18 Weyerhaeuser Mortg. Co., 582 F.2d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1978) (affirming a denial of a motion for 19 leave after the close of discovery when “[t]here was no showing that information to support the 20 [] amended complaint was unknown or unavailable when discovery was closed”). 21 While Plaintiffs argue they could not have filed this motion before December 2024 when 22 amended pleadings were due because the payment was not due until early 2025 (see Dkt. No. 29 23 at 2), Plaintiffs do not explain why it took them until September 2025, after the discovery cutoff,

24 1 to file this motion. Plaintiffs acknowledge Defendants consistently paid Plaintiffs’ insurance 2 premium in February or March of each year from 2020 to 2024. (Dkt. No. 29 at 4.) Arguably, 3 Plaintiff’s would have learned whether payment to their insurer was delinquent sometime after 4 March of this year.

5 At minimum, Plaintiffs were certainly aware of the alleged lack of payment by 6 Defendants in July 2025 when they questioned Rushmore about it at deposition. (Id. at 3.) 7 Plaintiffs assert Defendants failed to respond to their requests for additional information about 8 this payment, but they never filed any motion to compel, statement of discovery dispute, or other 9 notice to alert the Court they were considering a new potential claim. 10 Finally, Plaintiffs also fail to assert confidently the basic and essential facts: whether the 11 insurance was paid or not. Plaintiffs assert Defendants refused to confirm whether they paid for 12 insurance. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 6.) However, Plaintiffs appear not to have reached out to their 13 insurer to confirm the status of their insurance. Plaintiffs do not explain why they were not able 14 to find a definitive answer as to whether their insurance premium is delinquent. While it is also

15 somewhat unclear why Defendants only assert they “expect” the bill was paid rather than 16 confirming the status and showing futility (Dkt. No. 28 at 10), Plaintiffs have the burden to show 17 good cause to amend their complaint after the deadline. 18 III ORDER 19 Accordingly, and having considered Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint 20 (Dkt. No. 19), the briefing of the parties, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds and 21 ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint is DENIED.1 22

1 Because the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion in full, the original RESPA claim remains pending 23 before this Court and is one of the subjects of the pending motion for summary judgment. No motion for remand will be entertained. 24 1 Dated this 15th day of October, 2025. 2 a 3 David G. Estudillo 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23