Replies to post #355593 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[navycmdr]

you're NOT that STUPID .... Defendants are causing the numerous DELAY(s)

II. Plaintiffs Did Not Unduly Delay In Bringing Amended Counts III and IV

Despite Treasury’s claim that Defendants are prejudiced by alleged undue delay in
bringing amended Counts III and IV, Treasury can point to no prejudice that could not have been
avoided except for Defendants’ own attempts to delay this litigation.

In fact, Defendants never raised undue delay as a basis of opposition during the meet-and-confer on Plaintiffs’ Motion, either during the parties’ telephone call or in writing. Ex. C at 1.

In light of the early stage of this case—there is no scheduling order nor has any discovery been taken—and the low bar set for amending a complaint (See D.I. 48 at 5-6),

Plaintiffs’ Motion should not be denied on this basis.

Indeed, this case is at its earliest stage because of Defendants’ own delay tactics.
Defendants requested an extended briefing schedule on the Motions to Dismiss (D.I. 14) and
then, just as the Court was ready to address the Motions to Dismiss by scheduling oral argument
(D.I. 42 at 4:11-23),

Defendants’ unsuccessful attempt to transfer the case through the Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) forced the case to be stayed (D.I. 39 and 44).
Treasury’s claims of Plaintiffs’ alleged delay thus ring hollow in comparison and this Motion
should be granted.8