United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
S.C. CHANG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint, filed October 20, 2017. This matter came
on for hearing on November 20, 2017. James Bickerton, Esq.,
John Perkins, Esq., and Bridget Morgan, Esq., appeared on
behalf of Plaintiffs. Blaine Rogers, Esq., appeared on behalf
of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. After careful
consideration of the parties' submissions, the applicable
law, and the arguments of counsel, the Court HEREBY GRANTS
the Motion for the reasons set forth below.
commenced this action on September 7, 2012, in the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. On March 20,
2013, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal. Shortly after
removal, Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
25, 2013, then Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway
issued an Order Granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an appeal.
April 24, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal
order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
23, 2017, the first Rule 16 Scheduling Order issued.
seek to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to
add additional plaintiffs to represent the putative class;
add additional subclasses; add factual allegations in support
of the claims alleged; and remove/modify certain allegations
in light of the dismissal of Defendants The Law Office of
David B. Rosen and David B. Rosen.
opposes the requested amendments on grounds of prejudice,
undue delay, and futility. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs
should not be permitted to add new claims guised as
subclasses or allegations concerning a consent order or
consent judgment because the information underlying those
claims and allegations were available at the time the action
was filed. Defendant also argues that the voluminuous
discovery necessitated by the proposed amendments, coupled
with the passage of time, would be prejudicial. Finally,
Defendant submits that the proposed subclass amendments are
barred by the statute of limitations.
15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or
21 days after service of a motion under Rule ...