Grogan v. Archwell Holdings LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which was filed without leave of court after the Plaintiff's one amendment as of right had been exhausted. The court accepted the complaint, finding that federal question jurisdiction was established by the addition of a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, and directed the Plaintiff to serve all defendants within 90 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Acceptance of the Second Amended Complaint despite procedural violation of Rule 15(a)(2)“Accordingly, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12)” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the Plaintiff had exhausted his right to amend under Rule 15(a)(1) and failed to obtain leave under Rule 15(a)(2). However, the court exercised its discretion to accept the filing because it was responsive to a prior Order to Show Cause and no prejudice existed as no defendants had been served. This is a permissible exercise of judicial discretion to manage the docket and avoid unnecessary procedural hurdles when no party is harmed. |
Determination that federal question jurisdiction exists“The Court is thus satisfied, at least for now, that jurisdiction is proper in federal court.” | agree with court The court found that the addition of a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The FCRA is a federal statute, and a claim arising under it provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction. The citation to Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. supports the general proposition that § 1331 is invoked by causes of action created by federal law. |
Ordering service of process on all defendants“Plaintiff SHALL serve all Defendants within ninety (90) days of the filing date of the original Complaint, or alternatively, if a defendant was added by amendment, within ninety (90) days from the date of the amendment.” | agree with court The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and the Ninth Circuit precedent in McGuckin v. United States to set the deadline for service. The rule requires service within 90 days of filing or, for added defendants, within 90 days of the amendment. The court's order correctly reflects this legal requirement. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the procedural defect in the amendment but exercises discretion to accept it based on the lack of prejudice and the context of the court's prior order. It correctly identifies the basis for federal question jurisdiction and applies the correct rule for the service deadline. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the matters addressed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN A. GROGAN, Case No.: 24-CV-1618 JLS (DEB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT AND CLARIFYING SERVICE OBLIGATIONS 14 BIRD ROCK HOME MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., 15 (ECF No. 12) Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Brian A. Grogan’s Second Amended 18 Complaint (“SAC,” ECF No. 12). Plaintiff originally brought this action on September 10, 19 2024, against over a dozen defendants. See ECF No. 1. One week later, Plaintiff amended 20 his Complaint, adding three additional defendants. See ECF No. 4. Recognizing a 21 potential lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the diversity jurisdiction provision of 28 22 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff “to show cause 23 as to why diversity jurisdiction exists over this matter.” ECF No. 9 (“Order”) at 2. In 24 response, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in which he voluntarily dismissed 25 without prejudice nine of the defendants. See ECF No. 11 at 3. Plaintiff 26 contemporaneously amended his Complaint for a second time to reflect the voluntary 27 dismissal, and he also added new claims for violations of federal and state credit reporting 28 laws. See id. 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “[a] party may amend its pleading once 2 as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after serving it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After 3 amending once as of right, however, “a party may amend its pleading only with the 4 opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff 5 exhausted his one amendment as of right when he properly amended his original Complaint 6 the first time on September 17, 2024, which was less than twenty-one days after serving it. 7 See ECF No. 4. However, Plaintiff did not seek nor obtain the Court’s leave to amend his 8 Complaint for the second time on October 8, 2024. See Docket. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 9 Second Amended Complaint was improperly filed in violation of Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 15(a)(2). 11 Despite Plaintiff’s error, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s pleading as the filing was 12 apparently in response to the Court’s Order and there does not appear to be prejudice to 13 any of the Defendants as no Defendant has yet been served or appeared in the matter. 14 However, Plaintiff is advised to abide by the amendment obligations prescribed by Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 15 in the future, as the Court may not be so generous the next time 16 around. Plaintiff is further advised to consult Southern District of California Civil Local 17 Rule 15.1 for other obligations as they relate to amended pleadings. 18 Having accepted Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the Court’s jurisdictional 19 concerns have ostensibly been cured with Plaintiff’s addition of a federal cause of action 20 for the alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. SAC ¶ 4. With that new cause 21 of action, the face of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint appears to satisfy the 22 requirements of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Grable & Sons 23 Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005) (“[Section 1331] is 24 invoked by and large by plaintiffs pleading a cause of action created by federal law . . . .”). 25 The Court is thus satisfied, at least for now, that jurisdiction is proper in federal court. 26 Accordingly, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF 27 No. 12), and Plaintiff is now directed to comply with the service requirements of Federal 28 Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Plaintiff SHALL serve all Defendants within ninety (90) days 1 || of the filing date of the original Complaint, or alternatively, if a defendant was added by 2 amendment, within ninety (90) days from the date of the amendment. See McGuckin 3 || v. United States, 918 F.2d 811, 813 (9th Cir. 1990). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: October 25, 2024 peach Jt, oe waite 6 on. Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28