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)

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