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)

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 [phone] 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