Crossett v. HOA Strategies et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DAVID D. CROSSETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARRIAGE CROSSING
CONDOMINIUMS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Case No. 1:25-cv-00147-RJS-CMR
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
Before the court is Plaintiff David D. Crossett’s Motion to Reinstate Terminated
Defendants.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns a dispute between a condominium owner and his homeowners
association (HOA).2 Crossett has been diagnosed with multiple medical conditions, including
legal blindness, diabetes, partial amputation, and bipolar disorder.3 The HOA has denied
Crossett’s request for three live-in aides to assist him with daily movement and monitoring.4
On September 18, 2025, Crossett brought this suit in state court alleging violations of
federal fair housing laws.5 On September 29, 2025, Defendants removed the action to federal
court.6 On October 8, 2025, Crossett filed his First Amended Complaint.7 Neither Trevor
1 Dkt. 37, Motion to Reinstate Terminated Defendants Trever Midgley and HOA Strategies, LLC (Motion).
2 See Dkt. 7, First Amended Complaint.
3 Dkt. 1-2, Exhibit 1 of 6 to State Court Complaint at 6–7.
4 See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 7–8, 10–11.
5 Dkt. 1-1, State Court Complaint at 6.
6 Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal from State Court (Small Claims) for Federal Question at 2.
7 First Amended Complaint at 1.
Case 1:25-cv-00147-RJS Document 41 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 5

2
Midgley or HOA Strategies, LLC were included as defendants in the original state court
Complaint but were inadvertently removed from the First Amended Complaint.8 Now pending
before the court is Crossett’s Motion to Reinstate Terminated Defendants.9 The Motion is fully
briefed and ripe for review.10
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 permits a plaintiff to amend the complaint with the
court’s leave and instructs the court to “freely give leave when justice so requires.”11 Granting
leave is within the district court’s discretion.12 Rule 15 is intended “to provide litigants the
maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural
niceties.”13 As the Supreme Court has explained,
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the
leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’14
The court must construe Crossett’s pro se pleadings and motions liberally.15 But the
court may not act as his advocate.16
8 Compare id., with State Court Complaint. See also Motion to Reinstate at 1 (“Plaintiff did not intend to remove or
dismiss any of the originally named parties.”).
9 Motion.
10 Dkt. 39, Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Terminated Defendents [sic] [Dkt. 37] (Opposition). The
Local Rules permit but do not require Crossett to file a reply. See DUCivR 7-1(a)(4)(D)(iii). Crossett elected to not
file a reply. See generally Docket.
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
12 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971).
13 Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).
14 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)).
15 See Haines v. Herner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.
1994).
16 Noe v. True, No. 21-1373, 2022 WL 5080196 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2022) (citing James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312,
1315 (10th Cir. 2013)).
Case 1:25-cv-00147-RJS Document 41 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 5

3
ANALYSIS
Crossett seeks leave to amend the Complaint to add as defendants Trevor Midgley and
HOA Strategies, LLC.17 Both parties were original defendants in the state court litigation and
inadvertently removed as defendants when Crossett filed a First Amended Complaint.18
Defendants first oppose the Motion because the termination of the defendants “was the
direct and foreseeable result of Plaintiff’s own amended pleading, not a clerical or procedural
error.”19 This argument is unpersuasive. Crossett proceeds pro se. He inadvertently removed
defendants from the caption when he amended the pleading as a matter of course. While this
may be foreseeable, it is a mistake, nonetheless.
Defendants next oppose the Motion as procedurally improper because Crossett “has not
properly moved to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.”20 The motion is titled
“motion to reinstate terminated Defendants,” but cites the proper federal rule to seek leave to
amend.21 The court is obligated to construe the pro se motion liberally. In so doing, the court
construes this motion to seek leave to file an amended complaint under Rule 15. Defendants
correctly point out Crossett has failed to submit “the proposed amended pleading as required by
local practice and basic Rule 15 jurisprudence.”22 The Motion explained the proposed
amendment: “reinstate Trever Midgley and HOA Strategies, LLC as named defendants in this
17 Motion at 1.
18 See id. at 1–2.
19 Opposition at 1–2.
20 Id.
21 Motion at 1–2.
22 Opposition at 2–3.
Case 1:25-cv-00147-RJS Document 41 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 5

4
matter.”23 This sufficiently gave Defendants notice of the proposed amendment. The court will
waive this procedure rule and permit amendment.
Defendants oppose the Motion as prejudicial.24 Defendants argue “undue prejudice”
because Midgley and HOA Strategies “have been terminated from the case for months, have not
participated in creating the scheduling order or other federal proceedings, have not made any
disclosures in the case, and have reasonably relied on Plaintiff’s amended complaint.”25 This
argument is unpersuasive. Midgley and HOA Strategies were on notice of this case, since they
were timely served with the initial complaint.26 The case is still in its infancy. No dispositive
motions have been filed by any party. The Motion was filed within two weeks of the first
scheduling order.27 Defendants have not specified how Midgley and HOA Strategies have relied
on the First Amended Complaint. The court concludes these facts do not amount to undue
prejudice.
Defendants also argue amendment is futile.28 Defendants argue Crossett failed to
“address prior defenses or deficiencies in his allegation.” But as the party asserting futility,
Defendants bear the burden.29 Defendants were on notice of the sole amendment: adding the
inadvertently removed defendants. The Opposition fails to demonstrate the claims against
Midgley and HOA Strategies are futile.30 Accordingly, Defendants fail to satisfy this burden.
23 Motion at 2.
24 Opposition at 2, 3–4.
25 Id. at 4.
26 Motion at 1.
27 See Dkt. 34, Scheduling Order.
28 Opposition at 4.
29 Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kansas Dep't of Transp., 953 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1181 (D. Kan. 2013), aff'd, 810
F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2016) (“The burden of showing futility rests with the [party] who assert[s] this ground in
opposing . . . leave to amend.”).
30 See Opposition.
Case 1:25-cv-00147-RJS Document 41 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 5

5
Ultimately, there is no showing of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility
here.31 Crossett made a mistake. He should be given the opportunity for his claims to be
decided on the merits.32 Accordingly, the court grants him leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Motion to Reinstate is GRANTED.33 Crossett is
ORDERED to file a Second Amended Complaint no later than March 4, 2026. The Second
Amended Complaint may add Trever Midgley and HOA Strategies, LLC as defendants but must
otherwise be the same as the First Amended Complaint. No additional changes are permitted.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of February 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge
31 See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.
32 See Minter, 451 F.3d at 1204.
33 Dkt. 37.
Case 1:25-cv-00147-RJS Document 41 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 5