Kang v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
3:23-cv-05106
W.D. Wash.May 20, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Manjeet and Amrik Kang filed a complaint against Nationstar Mortgage LLC and U.S. Bank National Association regarding property and contract disputes in Puyallup, Washington.
- Defendants answered the complaint and asserted twelve affirmative defenses.
- The court set an August 10, 2023, deadline for amending pleadings.
- In April 2024, Defendants moved to amend their answer—after the deadline—to add a new affirmative defense based on res judicata from a prior class action settlement in Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC.
- Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to amend.
- The court evaluated Defendants' diligence in seeking amendment and considered absence of prejudice and futility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Defendants be allowed to amend answer after deadline? | Not presented (no opposition) | Defendants sought to add res judicata defense after discovering new relevant facts | Amendment allowed; Defendants acted with diligence and no prejudice would result |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (discusses the "good cause" standard for amending scheduling orders under Rule 16)
- Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (addresses standards for granting leave to amend under Rule 15)
- Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (factors for granting or denying leave to amend pleadings under Rule 15)