Wilkins v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

Background

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS) moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend its answer. It requested two changes. First, it sought to change paragraph 19 from an admission to a denial. The complaint alleged that any certification of a permissible purpose to a credit-reporting agency was false. SLS said its admission of that allegation was a “scrivener’s error,” meaning a clerical mistake, and that its denials elsewhere in the answer made its intended position clear.

Second, SLS sought to add a statute-of-limitations defense to Craig Wilkins’s claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. SLS had already raised that defense in its motion for summary judgment. The court noted that Wilkins had an opportunity to respond to the defense and had done so.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 15 generally requires courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. Leave to amend may be denied for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility.

The court found no prejudice from correcting the admission because SLS’s other denial had already placed Wilkins on notice that SLS was not admitting that it falsely certified a permissible purpose to obtain his credit report. The court also found no undue delay or prejudice from adding the statute-of-limitations defense. SLS explained that the complaint did not refer to calls occurring more than one year before the complaint was filed or otherwise show that Wilkins sought recovery for those calls. Wilkins did not dispute that explanation. His argument that the calls remained actionable under a continuing-violation theory went to the defense’s merits, not to whether SLS should be allowed to add it.

The court further stated that the amendment would not affect the pending summary-judgment proceedings because the parties had already fully presented their arguments about whether the statute of limitations barred Wilkins’s claims.

Disposition

The court granted SLS’s application to amend. It deemed the existing answer, filed at Docket # 5, amended to make both requested changes, and stated that SLS did not need to file an amended answer. The order addressed permission to add the defense; it did not decide whether the statute-of-limitations defense succeeds.