Dowling v. Bank of America, National Association, 1:14-cv-01041

Plaintiff Brenda Dowling sued Bank of America alleging breach of contract, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, FDCPA claims, violations of the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, and UCL claims arising from mortgage, loan-modification, and foreclosure conduct.
Court set a scheduling order (non-expert discovery deadline March 28, 2017; noted that post-deadline amendments require good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)).
On March 27, 2017 (one day before non-expert discovery closed), Dowling moved for leave to file a second amended complaint adding fraud and additional conversion claims based on alleged payment misapplication and recording of a partial claim deed of trust.
Dowling asserted the new facts were discovered at the March 16, 2017 deposition of Bank of America’s 30(b)(6) witness (Jennifer Chatman) and from documents produced in discovery.
Bank of America opposed, arguing the facts were not new, the motion was untimely and prejudicial, and the proposed claims would be futile or time-barred; the court noted many relevant documents (payment history, deed) were previously produced and available to Dowling.
The court denied leave to amend, finding Dowling lacked diligence and failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b) to modify the scheduling order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff may amend pleadings after scheduling-order deadline	Dowling learned new, amendment-supporting facts at the Chatman deposition and from late-disclosed documents	Motion is untimely; facts were already available in plaintiff’s file and public record; amendment prejudicial	Denied — no good cause under Rule 16(b); plaintiff not diligent
Whether alleged newly-discovered facts (payment misapplication) support conversion claim	Misapplied payments discovered at deposition show conversion	Payment history reflecting same facts was produced in 2014; not new	Denied — facts were previously available, plaintiff was on notice
Whether recording/recordation facts support fraud claim	Chatman’s testimony revealed recording by Bank of America and HUD non-funding, supporting fraud	The partial-claim deed and its preparer notation were in original complaint; reconveyance shows HUD did not fund	Denied — plaintiff had prior notice from recorded documents
Whether amendment would be futile or time-barred	Plaintiff did not extensively address limitations; argued claim merits based on new facts	Defendant argued proposed claims arise from 2009–2010 conduct and are barred by the 3-year statute of limitations	Court relied on absence of diligence under Rule 16(b); did not grant amendment, noting statute-of-limitations concerns and futility arguments supporting denial

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (moving party must show good cause under Rule 16(b) to amend after scheduling-order deadline)
Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 16(b) good-cause inquiry focuses on moving party’s diligence)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (Rule 15(a) factors for granting leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, futility, prejudice)