Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland grants Stephen Ruben’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The court concludes that amendment is appropriate because the proposed pleading streamlines the claims and adds factual allegations, and it finds no undue delay, bad faith, or sufficient prejudice. The court denies Wells Fargo’s pending motion to dismiss as moot and without prejudice to refiling after the second amended complaint is docketed.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Decision date
April 28, 2026
Docket number
Civil No. 25-450-BAH
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a second amended complaint.
- Whether the proposed second amended complaint was futile because its claims allegedly could not withstand a motion to dismiss.
- Whether Defendant's pending motion to dismiss the first amended complaint became moot upon docketing the second amended complaint.
Holdings
- Leave to amend should be granted because Plaintiff sought to streamline the case, clarify the allegations, and add factual allegations, and the record did not show undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice.
- The proposed second amended complaint was not shown to be clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face, so the court would not deny leave to amend based on futility.
- The filing and docketing of the second amended complaint superseded the first amended complaint and rendered Defendant's pending motion to dismiss the first amended complaint moot.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…