Kathleen Angel Einsenberg v. Citibank NA et al

Filing 101

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 6/29/2016, plaintiff filed the instant Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification, Reconsideration, and/or Leave to Amend 93 . In this motion, plaintiff requests that the Court clarify whether it s dismissal of the FAC was with or without leave to amend. Alternatively, to the extent the Court did not grant leave to amend, plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its ruling and grant plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. In d ismissing the FAC, the Court intended to provide plaintiff with leave to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court hereby grants plaintiff 30 days in which to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the Court's order dismissing the FAC. Plaintiff's motion for clarification and/or reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01814-CAS(JPRx)

Title

KATHLEEN ANGEL EISENBERG V. CITIBANK N.A., ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 25, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION, AND/OR LEAVE TO
AMEND (Dkt. 93, filed June 29, 2016)

On May 29, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. 25. On June 15, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC. Dkt. 89. To the extent the Court granted
defendants’ motion, it did so without prejudice. Id. at 8. On June 29, 2016, plaintiff filed
the instant motion for clarification and/or reconsideration. Dkt. 93.1 In this motion,
plaintiff requests that the Court clarify whether its dismissal of the FAC was with or
without leave to amend. Alternatively, to the extent the Court did not grant leave to
amend, plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its ruling and grant plaintiff leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint.
In dismissing the FAC, the Court intended to provide plaintiff with leave to file an
amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court hereby grants plaintiff thirty (30) days in
which to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s
order dismissing the FAC. Failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days may
result in dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. In addition, plaintiff may not
plead additional claims or add allegations that are not intended to cure the specific

1

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of August
1, 2016, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01814-CAS(JPRx)

Date

July 25, 2016

Title

KATHLEEN ANGEL EISENBERG V. CITIBANK N.A., ET AL.

defects the Court has noted. In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for clarification
and/or reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2