Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James finding as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ESPERANZA CORRAL,

Case No. 14-cv-02251-MEJ

Plaintiff,
7

ORDER FINDING AS MOOT MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.
8
9
10

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 8

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 8. However, on

13

July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 19. Under Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 15, a party may amend its pleading once “as a matter of course” within “21 days after

15

service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Here, Defendants

16

filed their motion on May 22, 2014, and Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to file an amended

17

complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a). “In all other cases, a party may amend its

18

pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

15(a)(2). Plaintiff failed to obtain either Defendants’ consent or the Court’s leave. However, Rule

20

15 provides that leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given when justice so requires,”

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and “[t]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence

22

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, so the case may

23

proceed on the merits, and to avoid further motion practice on this issue, the Court shall permit

24

Plaintiff’s amendment. Since Defendants’ motion is based on Plaintiff’s original complaint, the

25

Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ motion as moot. Defendants shall file an answer or other

26

responsive pleading within 21 days from the date of this Order.

27
28

Plaintiff is advised that no further amendments may be made without seeking leave of
Court pursuant to Rule 15 and Civil Local Rule 7. Based on the procedural history of this case,

1

Plaintiff is also reminded that the Court will likely impose sanctions for any future failure to

2

comply with the rules, orders, and deadlines of this Court. See Dkt. Nos. 14, 17-18.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6
7

Dated: July 2, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2