Tyler v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 4:16-cv-00088

Plaintiffs (Eric and Joann Tyler) obtained a 2003 home equity loan; they later allege it violated the Texas Constitution and therefore the loan and its lien are invalid.
The loan/note has been assigned to Deutsche Bank (as trustee); Select Portfolio Servicing is also a defendant.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 2, 2016; Defendants filed answers and an amended answer early in 2016.
The scheduling order set a July 2016 deadline for amended pleadings; the bench trial was scheduled for September 2017.
Defendants moved on July 19, 2017 — nearly one year after the amendment deadline and about one month before trial — for leave to file a supplemental answer asserting an equitable subrogation defense.
The Court denied the motion, finding undue delay, failure to cure deficiencies by earlier amendments, and undue prejudice to Plaintiffs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendants should be permitted to amend to assert equitable subrogation after the amendment deadline	Amendment is untimely and would unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs who prepared for trial without that defense	Leave should be granted because equitable subrogation is a core defense, facts/evidence were known and exhibits were disclosed in the pretrial order	Denied — amendment refused due to undue delay, failure to cure earlier, and undue prejudice
Whether delay in seeking amendment is excusable	Delay is inexcusable and unexplained; it impairs Plaintiffs' trial preparation	Defendants contend exhibits/evidence were already disclosed and new counsel explains timing	Court found defendants gave no adequate explanation for the year-long delay; factor favors denial
Whether prior amendments cured pleading deficiencies	Plaintiffs argue defendants had multiple opportunities and failed to assert subrogation earlier	Defendants argue the defense is timely and supported by already-disclosed materials	Court held defendants failed to cure deficiencies by earlier amendments; weighs against amendment
Whether Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by last-minute amendment	Plaintiffs would be forced to pivot trial strategy with only one month remaining	Defendants claim no prejudice because evidence was already disclosed	Court found substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs; factor strongly against amendment

Smith v. EMC, 393 F.3d 590 (5th Cir. 2004) (sets Rule 15(a) factors for amendment analysis)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (establishes factors guiding leave to amend)
Whitaker v. City of Hous., 963 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1992) (delay can be fatal to amendment)
Gresham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., [citation="642 F. App' x 355"] (5th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial where movant failed to explain delay and sought amendment after deadlines)
Jamieson v. Shaw, 772 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1985) (district court may deny leave based on combined weight of factors)