Eddy et al v. Federal Home Loan Morgage Corporation et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/15/2018 ORDERING that the 24 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. Plaintiffs' Request to Amend the complaint is GRANTED. The 26 Amended Complaint is deemed the operative complaint. Defendants shall file a response to the amended complaint within 21 days. Defendants' 16 and 20 Motions to Dismiss are DENIED. The 6/22/2018 hearing on defendants' motions is VACATED. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK & BOBBIE EDDY, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-0400 KJM DB PS v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., ORDER Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs Mark Eddy and Bobbie Eddy are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter 19 was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1). On March 22, 2018, and March 23, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss. (ECF 21 Nos. 16 & 20.) After plaintiffs failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition, 22 the undersigned issued an order to show cause and continued the hearing of defendants’ motions 23 to dismiss to June 22, 2018. (ECF No. 24.) 24 On June 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 25.) 25 Plaintiffs’ response reflects an understanding of their error and a promise to “do better.” (Id. at 26 3.) Accordingly, the order to show cause will be discharged. 27 28 On June 7, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 26.) Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a 1 1 matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a 2 responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after 3 service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Here, the most recently 4 filed motion to dismiss was filed on March 23, 2018. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiffs’ amended 5 complaint was filed well passed the 21-day deadline. 6 Nonetheless, “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when 7 justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th 8 Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (“The court should freely give leave 9 when justice so requires.”). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the 10 amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue 11 delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id. The “court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 12 particularly broad where the court has already given the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his 13 complaint.” Fidelity Financial Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, 792 F.2d 14 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986). 15 Here, the undersigned cannot yet find that granting plaintiffs leave to amend would 16 prejudice the opposing party, is sought in bad faith; would produce an undue delay, or would be 17 futile. Therefore, and in light of plaintiffs’ pro se status, the undersigned will construe plaintiffs’ 18 filing as a request for leave to amend and grant that request. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. The May 11, 2018 order to show cause (ECF No. 24) is discharged; 21 2. Plaintiffs’ June 7, 2018 request for leave to amend is granted; 22 3. The amended complaint filed on June 7, 2018 (ECF No. 26) is deemed the operative 23 complaint in this action; 24 4. Defendants shall file a response to the amended complaint within 21 days; 25 5. Defendants’ March 22, 2018, and March 23, 2018 motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 16 & 26 20) are denied without prejudice as having been rendered moot; and 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 2 6. The June 22, 2018 hearing of defendants’ motions is vacated. Dated: June 15, 2018 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.pro se/eddy0400.lta.grnt.ord 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?