Filgueira v. US Bank National Ass'n ex rel. Residential Funding Mortgage Securities, Inc.
734 F.3d 420
5th Cir.2013Background
- Filgueira appeals the district court’s denial of leave to amend his complaint.
- Foreclosure proceedings: loan originated in 2006, deed of trust secured by property, Note and Deed assigned to U.S. Bank with GMAC as servicer.
- By spring 2011 Filgueira was delinquent; lender accelerated; foreclosure sale slated for Feb 7, 2011.
- Filgueira filed state-court wrongful-foreclosure suit the day before the sale; case removed to federal court and referred to a magistrate.
- District court set a Sept. 10, 2012 deadline to amend; Filgueira sought leave 11 days after the deadline; court denied, dismissing the case.
- Court affirms denial, concluding no good cause shown to modify the scheduling order and amendments would be futile or prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause supports amendment under Rule 16(b)(4). | Filgueira contends good cause existed due to attorney withdrawal. | Defendants argue late amendment is not justified; deadlines were not met. | No; good cause not shown; scheduling order not properly modified. |
| Was the amendment timely under the scheduling order? | Filgueira argues extension was warranted by counsel’s withdrawal. | Withdrawal occurred before deadline; ample time to seek leave. | No; amendment untimely under deadline and Rule 16(b)(4). |
| Would the proposed amendments be futile? | Amendments would add claims including chain of title, FDCPA, DTPA, etc. | Evidence showed the proposed claims lacked support and would fail. | Yes; amendments would be futile. |
| Would amendment prejudice defendants or require a continuance? | Amendment would not prejudice if allowed. | Allowing new claims after deadline would prejudice defendants and cause delay. | Yes; prejudice established; continuance would not cure. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Serv. Temps Inc., 679 F.3d 323 (5th Cir.2012) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend; good-cact factors apply)
- S & W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir.2003) (Rule 15(a) liberal amendment standard; not applicable after scheduling-order deadline)
- Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.2008) (good cause required to modify scheduling order deadlines)
- Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249 (5th Cir.2013) (Texas law does not require foreclosing entity to be holder of the note)
- Sauceda v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 268 S.W.3d 135 (Tex.App.2008) (no viable wrongful-foreclosure claim where no sale occurred)