Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 09/15/11 ORDERING that plf's 62 Motion to Amend the Complaint is DENIED w/o prejudice to refiling. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DENNLY R. BECKER; THE BECKER
TRUST DATED MARCH 25, 1991,

11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:10-cv-02799 LKK KJN PS

v.

14

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., INC., et al.

15

Defendants.

ORDER
/

16
Plaintiffs Dennly Becker (“Becker”) and the Becker Trust Dated March 25, 1991
17

(“Becker Trust”) (collectively, the “plaintiff”1) is proceeding without counsel in this action.2 A

18
review of the court’s docket reflects that on August 30, 2011, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend
19
Complaint.” (Dkt. No. 62). As stated in the Judge Karlton’s minute order of September 1, 2011,
20
however, plaintiff defectively noticed that motion. (Dkt. No. 64.) Judge Karlton’s minute order
21
of September 1, 2011, also advised plaintiff to “properly re-notice the motion to be heard before
22
23
1

24

The undersigned treats Becker and the Becker Trust as a singular plaintiff because, as
discussed in the court’s order dated December 13, 2010 (Dkt. No. 21), Becker is the sole
beneficiary of the Becker Trust.

25
2

26

This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule
302(c)(21).
1

1

Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.” (Dkt. No. 64.)

2

To date, however, plaintiff has not re-noticed his motion before Judge Newman.

3

Accordingly, plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Complaint” (Dkt. No. 62) is hereby denied without

4

prejudice to refiling. Should plaintiff choose to re-file his motion, such filing should be in

5

accordance with Local Rule 230(b) and (k).

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 15, 2011

8
9
10

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2