Plymouth County v. MERSCORP, Inc.
287 F.R.D. 449
N.D. Iowa2012Background
- Plymouth County, Iowa sued MERS, MERSCORP, and various mortgage companies alleging unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, piercing the corporate veil, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief.
- The court dismissed the County’s Class Action Petition in August 2012 for failure to state claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Court rejected the “unjust enrichment” theories that relied on a statutory requirement to record mortgage assignments under Iowa law.
- The County had separately asserted a conditional request to amend the complaint if the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but did not attach a proposed amended complaint.
- Judgment was entered the same day as the ruling on the motion to dismiss, and the County later filed a Post-Dismissal Motion seeking Rule 59(e) relief and leave to file a Proposed Amended Complaint.
- The Court granted part of the motion by reconsidering the conditional request for leave to amend but denied/post-dismissal relief to file the Proposed Amended Complaint used to replead the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should reconsider its handling of the County’s conditional request to amend. | County argues it should be allowed to amend if the Court granted dismissal. | Defendants contend Rule 59(e) requires manifest error or new evidence, not a change in theory. | Yes, reconsideration granted for the conditional request to amend. |
| What standard applies to a post-judgment, post-dismissal request for leave to amend. | County relies on Rule 15(a)(2) to test claims on merits. | Defendants emphasize post-dismissal motions are disfavored and governed by stricter standards. | Post-dismissal amendments are disfavored and subjected to Rule 15(a)(2) considerations, but not automatically futile. |
| Whether the County’s proposed amended complaints are futile and should be denied. | Proposed Amended Complaint refines unjust enrichment theory and realigns with Iowa Code § 558.41. | Proposed amendments rest on same core legal premise and are futile. | Yes, the post-dismissal proposed amendments are futile and denied. |
| Whether the conditional and post-dismissal amendment requests should be granted or denied together with alteration of judgment. | County seeks alteration of judgment to allow amendment. | Judge should deny post-dismissal amendment to avoid changing theories after ruling. | Denied as to conditional and post-dismissal amendment; alteration of judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2006) (Rule 59(e) corrections limited to manifest errors of law or fact)
- United States ex rel. Raynor v. National Rural Utilities Co-op. Fin. Corp., 690 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2012) (Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) serve limited correction purpose)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN, L.L.C., 653 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 59(e)/60(b) purpose; newly discovered evidence standard)
- Sipp v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 59(e) limits; correcting manifest errors)
- Hypoguard USA, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assoc., of the Black Hills, 559 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2009) (Distinction between post-dismissal and pre-dismissal amendment standards)