Steven Andre v. Bank of America, NA, 5:14-cv-02888

Andre fell behind on mortgage payments after the 2008 downturn and applied for a loan modification in late 2010; his applications were repeatedly denied for procedural reasons and identity verification issues.
Between 2010–2012 BANA recorded three notices of default against Andre’s property; Andre obtained rescissions each time; no foreclosure is pending.
Andre filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserting multiple causes of action against Bank of America (BANA) and Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS), including newly added claims for conversion, False Claims Act violation, fraud, and conspiracy.
The court previously dismissed Andre’s original complaint for failure to state a claim and granted leave to amend; the FAC included new claims without seeking court leave or opposing counsel’s consent.
Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC; Andre did not file an opposition but filed an objection concerning a procedural sealing allegation; the court limited judicial notice to the existence of publicly recorded documents (not their disputed contents).
The court granted Defendants’ motions: the newly added claims were dismissed with prejudice for being improperly added; the remaining claims were dismissed as unopposed, but the pro se plaintiff was given one final 14-day opportunity to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Andre could add new claims in the FAC without court leave or consent	Andre added conversion, FCA, fraud, and conspiracy claims in FAC (no argument that leave was obtained)	Defendants: new claims required court leave or written consent under Rule 15; amendment exceeded scope of prior leave	Court: New claims were improperly added; dismissed with prejudice because plaintiff never sought leave or consent
Effect of Andre’s failure to oppose the motions to dismiss	Andre filed an objection about a filing being "Under Seal" but did not oppose merits	Defendants: motions should be granted as unopposed	Court: Motions granted as unopposed; failure to oppose is fatal but court afforded pro se one final chance to amend
Scope of judicial notice for recorded documents	Andre disputes substance of recorded notices and rescissions	Defendants asked court to judicially notice recorded deeds, notices, and rescissions	Court: Judicial notice limited to the fact the documents were recorded; will not notice disputed factual contents
Whether the court will permit further amendment after procedural failures	Andre sought to proceed despite procedural defects and pro se status	Defendants sought dismissal; argued leave should be denied due to procedural violations	Court: Denied new-claim addition and dismissed unopposed counts, but in light of pro se status allowed one final 14-day opportunity to file an amended complaint

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may take judicial notice of the existence of public records but not of disputed facts asserted within those records)