American Pacific Mortgage Corporation v. Everett Financial Inc

1 HONORABLE TIFFANY M. CARTWRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 AMERICAN PACIFIC MORTGAGE Case No. 2:21-cv-1088-TMC CORPORATION, a California corporation; and | ELEMENT MORTGAGE, a division of JOINT STIPULATION FOR LEAVE | AMERICAN PACIFIC MORTGAGE TO AMEND PLAINTIFEF’S CORPORATION COMPLAINT and ORDER 2 Plaintiff, TRIAL DATE: — January 17, 2023 13 ACTION FILED: August 13, 2021 vs. EVERETT FINANCIAL, INC. d/b/a SUPREME 15 LENDING; LUKE WELLING, an individual residing in Washington State; MATTHEW 16 THOMAS, an individual residing in Washington State; ANDREW HOPKINS, an individual 17 residing in Washington State; AUSTIN JAMES, an individual residing in Washington State; 18 COREY CONDRIN, an individual residing in 19 Washington State; DANIEL WON, an individual residing in Washington State; KIMBERLY 0 BUNDRUM, an individual residing in Washington State; CINDEE WILSON, an 21 individual residing in Washington State; JANE/JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE 22 BUSINESS/CORPORATE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants. | Page 1 —- JOINT STIPULATION FOR MEDINA McKELVEY LLP MCKELVEY LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S 925 Highland Pointe Drive. Suite 300 1} 1. INTRODUCTION 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and LCR 15, Plaintiff and Defendants || by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that Plaintiff be given | leave of the Court to amend the complaint filed herein and the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT | FOR DAMAGES AND JURY TRIAL, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be filed within sixteen || days of this stipulation being granted by the court.

7 | OL BACKGROUND 8 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 13, 2021 and subsequently served the Summons and | Complaint on multiple Defendants. Subsequently, the court granted a motion to compel arbitration || as to all the defendants, except for Supreme Lending and Luke Welling, and imposed a stay on the | litigation until arbitration had concluded, sending the remaining defendants to arbitration. During | arbitration, Plaintiff learned more facts pertaining to its claims, and determined to narrow its claims || and parties, ultimately dismissing all of the defendants except for Supreme Lending and Luke || Welling. The parties now stipulate and agree to amend Plaintiff's Complaint as reflected in the || attached exhibit.

16 | TT. ARGUMENT 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows for the amendment of pleadings with leave || of the court, or with opposing counsel’s written consent, before trial. The Rule further provides || that “the court should freely give leave when Justice so requires.” Jd.

20 The Ninth Circuit has instructed that this rule “should be interpreted with ‘extreme || liberality,’” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States | v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)), and “[a]n outright refusal to grant leave to amend || without a justifying reason is... an abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Constellation Brands, Inc., 2018 || WL 991450, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2018) (quoting Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 || F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008)). A district court only has discretion to deny leave to amend “‘due || to... repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to | the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Jd. at 9g | *2 (quoting Zucco Partners, LLC vy. Digimarc Corp., 52 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) and “| PRgg2=OINT STIPULATION FOR MEDINA MeKELVEY LP | Leadsinger, Inc., 512 F.3d at 532). An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the | original pleading when the amendment changes the party against whom a claim is asserted if the || amendment asserts a claim that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out (or | attempted to be set out) in the original pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B).

5 | IV. CONCLUSION 6 For these reasons, the parties respectfully seek the court’s approval of this stipulation and | allow Plaintiff to file the attached amended complaint within sixteen days of this stipulation being | granted.

9 || Dated this 4th day of October, 2023.

11 MEDINA MCKELVEY, LLP DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP By: s/ Rabindra M. David By: s/F. Matthew Ralph 13 Rabindra M. David (Pro Hac Vice) F. Matthew Ralph (Pro Hac Vice) 14 Alexander M. Medina (Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] [email protected] Marina Lyons (WSBA No. 49127) [email protected] with 16 Attorneys for Defendants 17 LINDSAY HART, LLP Tyson L. Calvert (WSBA No. 38908) 18 [email protected] 19 and 71 Maren L. Calvert (WSBA No. 53940) 2 [email protected] SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & 23 WYATT Washington St Ste 701 24 Vancouver, WA 98660-3338 25 Telephone: (360) 597-0804 2% Attorneys for Plaintiff American Pacific Mortgage Corp. | Page 3 — JOINT STIPULATION FOR MEDINA McKELVEY LLP MCKELVEY LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S 925 Highland Pointe Drive. Suite 300 1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties in this matter, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend || its Complaint. Plaintiff must file and serve the amended pleading on all parties within sixteen | days of the filing of this order.

6 Dated this 4th day of October, 2023, at Seattle, Washington.

7 Low CC 8 Tiffany M. Cartwright 9 United States District Court Judge 1] || Presented and submitted by: | _/s/ Rabindra M. David Rabindra M. David (CA SBN 274504) | Admitted pro hac vice 16 [email protected] MEDINA McKELVEY LLP | 925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300 Roseville, California 95678 || Telephone: (916) 960-2211 Facsimile: (916) 742-5488 | Page 4-— JOINT STIPULATION FOR MEDINA McKELVEY LLP MCKELVEY LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S 925 Highland Pointe Drive. Suite 300