Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Goolsby v. JPMorgan Chase Bank — Court struck unauthorized second amended complaint

Reported / Citable

Case
Michael G. Goolsby and Melissa E. Goolsby v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
Judge
Leon Schydlower
Date Decided
July 30, 2026
Docket No.
6:26-CV-00368-LS
Topics
Civil procedure; Pleading amendments; Mortgage litigation

Background

Michael G. Goolsby and Melissa E. Goolsby sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Flagstar Bank, N.A., Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and Rocket Mortgage, LLC. The order addresses a procedural dispute over the plaintiffs’ attempt to file a second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs had previously amended their complaint without leave on June 25, 2026. They then filed a second amended complaint without obtaining the opposing parties’ written consent or the court’s permission.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Leon Schydlower granted the defendants’ motions to strike and struck the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course; further amendments require either the opposing party’s written consent or leave of court.

Because the plaintiffs had already used their one amendment as of right, the court held that their later filing was unauthorized. The court also granted JPMorgan Chase’s motion for leave to file a reply. It denied as moot Lakeview Loan Servicing and Rocket Mortgage’s motion to dismiss the now-stricken second amended complaint.

Key Takeaways

  • A party generally may amend a pleading once as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1).
  • After that amendment, a further amended pleading requires written consent from the opposing party or leave of court under Rule 15(a)(2).
  • A motion directed to a pleading that is later struck may be denied as moot.

Why It Matters

The order is a straightforward reminder that litigants must track Rule 15’s amendment limits. Filing another amended complaint without consent or leave can result in the pleading being struck, regardless of the claims it contains.

For defendants, the decision also illustrates that a pending motion to dismiss may become unnecessary once the challenged pleading is removed from the case.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top