Kozlowski v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 53

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 52 Request for Leave to Amend, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/21/18. Amended Complaint Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MYUNG JIN MYRA KOZLOWSKI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:18-cv-00131-DAD-EPG

v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
(Doc. No. 52)

15

Defendants.

16
17

On June 5, 2018, the court dismissed defendants Equifax, Inc., Equifax Information

18

Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc., and TransUnion LLC from this action,

19

having found that plaintiff’s first amended complaint appeared to have abandoned any claims or

20

causes of action against those defendants. (Doc. No. 49.) The court therefore directed the Clerk

21

of the Court to terminate those defendants from this case. (Id.)
On June 21, 2018, plaintiff notified the court, in a filing styled as a request for judicial

22
23

notice, that plaintiff did not intend to abandon her claims against the terminated defendants.

24

(Doc. No. 52.) Plaintiff states that she believed she had been permitted to file a first amended

25

complaint only against defendants Bank of America, N.A., The Moore Law Group, and Harvey

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

M. Moore.1 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also requests further leave to amend the complaint to include the

2

terminated defendants. (Id.)
Finding good cause, and in consideration of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will grant

3
4

plaintiff’s request for leave to amend to file a second amended complaint. However, the court

5

once again advises plaintiff, as it previously did in its May 4, 2018 order:

6

[T]he court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an
amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires any amended
complaint to be complete in itself without reference to prior
pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original
complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus,
in any amended complaint plaintiff elects to file, she must (1) name
each defendant in the caption, (2) identify each defendant in the body
of the complaint and of each claim, and (3) sufficiently allege the
involvement of each defendant, just as if it were the initial complaint
filed in the case. Finally, any amended complaint filed by plaintiff
must include concise but complete factual allegations describing the
conduct and events which underlie her claims.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(Doc. No. 47 at 13.)

14

Accordingly:

15

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of

16

the service of this order; and

17

2. Any failure by plaintiff to file an amended complaint within the time provided will likely

18

result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to abide by the

19

court’s orders.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

June 21, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants Equifax, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions
Inc., and TransUnion LLC filed answers to plaintiff’s original complaint. (Doc. Nos. 22, 26, 27,
29.) Defendants Bank of America, N.A., The Moore Law Group, and Harvey M. Moore were the
only defendants who moved to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint. (Doc. Nos. 14, 15.) Thus,
the court’s May 4, 2018 order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss and granting plaintiff leave
to amend did not address plaintiff’s causes of action brought against defendants Equifax, Inc.,
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc., and TransUnion LLC.
(See Doc. No. 47.)
2