Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 28

Order by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins Denying 27 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
10 PAUL A. JONES,

Case No. 13-cv-00903 NC

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and others,
14

Defendants.

15
On May 29, 2013, the Court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss Jones’ first

16

17 amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 22. The
18 Court gave Jones until June 19, 2013 to amend his complaint to cure its deficiencies and
19 warned that failure to amend would result in dismissal of his case with prejudice. Id. This
20 deadline passed, and Jones did not amend his complaint. On July 23, 2013, the Court
21 dismissed Jones’ case with prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Court’s May 29 order
22 and ordered the Clerk to terminate the case. Dkt. No. 26.
On July 29, 2013, Jones filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint,

23

24 attaching his proposed amendment. Dkt. No. 27. In this filing, Jones does not state why he
25 failed to file his amendment within the twenty-one days the Court granted him. Jones also
26 does not state any reason why he is entitled to relief from the Court’s July 23 order.
27 Accordingly, Jones’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED.
28 //
Case No. 13-cv-00903 NC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

1

If Jones wishes to set aside the Court’s July 23 order, he must comply with the

2 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) allows relief from a
3 final judgment or order due to (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
4 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
5 discovered in time; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
6 (4) where the judgment is void; (5) where the judgment has been satisfied, released or
7 discharged; or it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
8 applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
9 Alternatively, Jones may appeal this Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
10 The Court’s July 23 order dismissed all claims and terminated the case and is therefore “an
11 order from which an appeal lies,” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.
12

The Court reminds Jones that he may refer to the Court’s Pro Se Handbook, available

13 on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook, or contact the
14 Legal Help Center, which provides information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se
15 litigants in civil cases. The Legal Help Center requires an appointment, which can be made
16 by calling [phone].
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Date: August 2, 2013

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 13-cv-00903 NC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

2