El-Shawary v. U.S. Bank National Association

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 GUIRGUIS, a.k.a. GEORGE, EL-SHAWARY, CASE NO. C18-1456-JCC a Washington resident, 10 ORDER 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as 13 Trustee for GSR MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-4F MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH 14 CERTIFICATE SERIES 2006-4F et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second 18 amended complaint (Dkt. No. 41). When deciding whether to grant leave to amend under Federal 19 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts consider four factors: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith, 20 (3) prejudice to the opposing party, and (4) futility. Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 21 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). Those factors are weighed “with all inferences in favor of granting the 22 motion” because Rule 15 instructs that “court[s] should freely give leave when justice so 23 requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Griggs, 170 F.3d at 880. 24 Defendants do not argue that these factors weigh against granting leave; indeed, 25 Defendants have not filed any papers in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. The Court construes 26 Defendants’ decision to not file opposition papers “as an admission that the motion has merit.” 1 See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(b)(2). The Court also independently finds that granting leave is 2 appropriate.1 The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended 3 complaint (Dkt. No. 41). However, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a revised amended 4 complaint that conforms with the Court’s recent order granting in part Defendants’ motion for 5 judgment on the pleadings. (See Dkt. No. 51 at 10) (dismissing Plaintiff’s 12 U.S.C. § 2607 6 claims against Nationstar and Xome, Plaintiff’s 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) claim against Nationstar, 7 Plaintiff’s FDCPA claims, and Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim against Xome). 8 Plaintiff must file the revised amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this order. 9 DATED this 9th day of July 2020. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Although the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add McCarthy & Holthus 25 L.L.P. (“M&H”) as a defendant, the Court makes no finding as to whether Plaintiff’s claims against M&H are meritorious. Once M&H has been served, M&H is free to seek dismissal of 26 any or all of the claims against it.