Perry v. Cashcall, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING 76 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 2/20/2014.(lblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division EDGAR PERRY, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 No. C 13-02369 LB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 13 CASHCALL, INC., et al., 14 [Re: ECF No. 76] Defendants. 15 16 17 _____________________________________/ 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff Edgar Perry, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against 20 CashCall, Inc., and the United States Consumer Financial Protection Agency. See ECF No. 1.1 21 Then, on July 28, 2013, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), Perry filed a First 22 Amended Complaint as a matter of course against CashCall, the Portuguese Fraternal Society of 23 America, the First Bank of California, and the State of California. See ECF No. 18. All four 24 Defendants have separately filed Motions to Dismiss Perry’s First Amended Complaint. See 25 CashCall Motion, ECF No. 25; First Bank of California Motion, ECF No. 32; Portuguese Fraternal 26 Society of America Motion, ECF No. 37; State of California Motion, ECF No. 70. These Motions to 27 28 1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document. C 13-02369 LB ORDER 1 2 Dismiss are pending and set for hearing on March 20, 2014. Now, Plaintiff has filed a one-sentence Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint which 3 states in full, “An[d] now comes the plaintiff and prays the court to file an amended Complaint.” 4 See ECF No. 76. The standard for filing an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 15 states that after a party has amended its pleading once as a matter of course, it “may 6 amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court 7 should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff’s motion does 8 not meet the Rule 15(a) standard: it contains no argument or citations in support of it and otherwise 9 fails to demonstrate any reason why justice requires that he be allowed to file a second amended complaint while Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are pending. At this stage, the court will address 11 the pending Motions to Dismiss first. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Motion to Dismiss hearings will take place as 13 scheduled on March 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District Court, 14 450 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco 94102. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 20, 2014 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 13-02369 LB ORDER 2

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?