Sangalang et al v. Bank of America N.A. et al

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Case Management Conference previously set for 2/25/2016 Continued to 3/17/2016 11:00 AM to be held telephonically. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/7/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BENIGNO DIZON SANGALANG, et al., Case No. 15-cv-04752-RS Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On December 30, 2015, William F. Marini substituted into this action as attorney of record 14 for the formerly pro se plaintiffs Benigno and Connie Sangalang. Dkt. No. 27. Five days later, 15 plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to refine the allegations contained therein and to 16 correct clerical errors. Marini Decl. ¶ 4a. Defendants contend leave to amend is unwarranted 17 because any amendment would be futile, and further maintain if leave is granted that plaintiffs 18 should be barred from adding new claims. 19 The amendment of pleadings is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. Under that rule, when a party seeks leave to amend a pleading, “[t]he court should 21 freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Denial of a motion for leave 22 to amend a pleading is proper only when “there is strong evidence of undue delay, bad faith or 23 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 24 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 25 amendment, or futility of amendment, etc.” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma 26 Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 27 28 Here, in light of Rule 15’s permissive standard and plaintiffs’ former pro se status, leave to amend is proper. Plaintiffs therefore shall file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of 1 the date of this order. Defendants reserve the right to respond by way of motion or answer as 2 provided by Rule 12. The pending motions to dismiss filed by defendants accordingly are denied 3 without prejudice.1 The Case Management Conference previously set for February 25, 2016, is continued to 4 5 March 17, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. All parties shall appear telephonically and must contact Court 6 Conference at (866) 582-6878 at least one week prior to the Conference to arrange their 7 participation. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dated: January 7, 2016 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The hearings set for January 21st and 28th will be vacated. 28 CASE NO. 2 15-cv-04752-RS

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?