Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
In this ongoing litigation involving claims arising from a foreclosure sale of plaintiff’s home, the court denies his motion for leave to amend the eighth version of his complaint and grants a related motion to strike filed by the Virginia Housing Development Authority and a law firm, the defendants in this case.
“The Court has already granted Ononuju leave to amend his complaint on several occasions and has already ruled on several dispositive motions related to Ononuju’s various complaints. The Court also understands that, despite a foreclosure sale at which VHDA was the purchaser, a facially valid Substitute Trustee’s Deed conveying the property to VHDA, and VHDA’s subsequent successful unlawful detainer action against Ononuju, VHDA has apparently elected to allow Ononuju to retain possession of the property pending the outcome of this case.
“Further, Ononuju’s latest requested amendment is primarily designed to increase his claimed punitive damages beyond the $216,600,000 already claimed in the ‘Latest Amended Complaint’ without including substantiating facts to support the proposed increase.
“The Court finds that further leave to amend the ‘Latest Amended Complaint’ would prejudice Defendants, would impose an undue burden on Defendants and the Court, and would not further the ends of justice.”
Ononuju’s motion for leave to amend is denied; defendants’ motion to strike is granted.”
Ononuju v. Virginia Housing Development Authority. CL18-7959, Oct. 30, 2019; Norfolk Cir. Ct. (Order) (Lannetti). VLW 019-8-101, 5 pp.
