(PS) Coward v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2:11-cv-03378

Plaintiff Dana Y. Coward sued J.P. Morgan Chase; defendant moved to dismiss and the magistrate judge issued F&R recommending dismissal without leave to amend.
While F&R pending, Coward retained counsel and sought extra time to object; the referral to the magistrate under the pro se rule was withdrawn and an extension to object was granted.
Coward did not file objections to the F&R but filed motions to amend her complaint (under Rule 15) and to stay proceedings pending a FIRREA claim; defendant opposed.
The district court adopted the F&R except it declined to dismiss with prejudice and granted Coward 14 days to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to address the F&R deficiencies, warning that failure could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
The court denied Coward’s Rule 15 motion to broaden leave to amend because she failed to (1) attach a proposed amended complaint as required by the local rule and (2) move under Rule 16 to modify the scheduling order before seeking amendment.
The court also denied Coward’s motion to stay because she did not meet her burden to show a stay was warranted under the Landis factors and failed to address those factors in her motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to dismiss the action based on the magistrate judge’s F&R	Coward did not object; sought leave to amend instead	J.P. Morgan sought dismissal as recommended in F&R	Court adopted F&R but declined dismissal with prejudice; granted 14 days to file a Fourth Amended Complaint
Whether to grant broader leave to amend under Rule 15	Coward asserted proposed amendments relate to original conduct and sought to add/change parties	Defendant opposed (argued procedural defects and failure to comply with rules)	Motion to amend denied for failure to attach a proposed amended complaint and failure to seek Rule 16 modification first
Whether compliance with local rules requires attaching a proposed amended complaint	Coward did not attach a proposed amended complaint	Defendant relied on local rule to oppose amendment	Court enforced local rule: failure to attach a proposed pleading is a proper basis to deny leave to amend
Whether to stay proceedings pending Coward’s planned FIRREA claim	Coward asked for a discretionary stay pending outcome of FIRREA claim	Defendant opposed; argued no basis for stay	Motion to stay denied: Coward bore burden to justify stay and failed to address Landis factors

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 16 scheduling order governs amendment timing; movant must show good cause to modify schedule)
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 16 considerations apply before Rule 15 amendments post-scheduling order)
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of leave to amend where movant failed to comply with local rule requiring proposed amended complaint)
Waters v. Weyerhaeuser Mortgage Co., 582 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1978) (district court has discretion to deny amendment for failure to comply with procedural requirements)
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing district court’s discretion to stay proceedings)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (establishing factors for discretionary stays)
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1997) (placing burden on stay movant to justify delay)