Ally Bank et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 233

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 218 Motion for Leave to Amend Without Prejudice;denying as moot 232 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The July 3, 2012 Hearing date is VACATED. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

ALLY BANK, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,

8

Plaintiffs,
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

vs.

Case No.: 11-CV-896 YGR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
AS MOOT

JAMES C. CASTLE AKA J. CHRISTOPHER
CASTLE, ET AL.,

12

Defendant(s).

13
14
15

Presently before the Court are two pending motions: (1) The Motion of Plaintiffs Fidelity

16

National Title Insurance Company, et al., for Leave to Amend; and (2) the Administrative Motion

17

of Defendants for Extension of Time to File Opposition to that motion. The Court has carefully

18

considered the motions and rules without oral argument or need of further briefing.1

19

The Motion of Plaintiffs Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., for Leave to

20

Amend is DENIED without prejudice for failure to state, with clarity and as previously directed by

21

the Court, the nature of the new allegations, claims, and parties to be added.

22

The Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to file their proposed motion for leave to amend and

23

to include in that filing a document that separated out just the new allegations they sought to add.

24

The motion filed on May 29, 2012, does not do this.

25
26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
finds that this motion, which has been noticed for hearing on July 3, 2012, is appropriate for
decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for July 3, 2012.

1

Further, the redline of the proposed Third Amended Complaint shows that the amendments

2

therein far exceed the scope of the amendments Plaintiffs say they are seeking in the memorandum

3

in support of the motion. The Court notes that the motion and the proposed complaint do not fully

4

explain the respective roles of the parties that Plaintiffs seek to add and have a number of internal

5

inconsistencies. (Compare Docket No. 218-4 [“Motion”] 4:10, 5:20 (stating that purchaser on the

6

Canyon and Stone properties was “PCR”) with Motion, Exh. A [proposed Third Amended

7

Complaint] (no Defendant “PCR” described in the Plaintiff allegations or listed in the caption, but

8

“PCR” and “PCD” identified in later allegations at ¶¶ 258-60, 275); see also, Motion, Exh. A at

9

(identifying Merritt as a defendant, but not listing Merritt in caption alleging basis for jurisdiction

Northern District of California

and venue over Merritt); Motion at 2-5 (no mention of proposed Defendants Marsha Lo, Robert Lo,

11

United States District Court

10

or Marya Merritt in motion, despite listing in proposed Third Amended Complaint at 3:10, 54:24,

12

and ¶319 (Los) and ¶85, 250, 270, 287 (Merritt).)

13

Finally, the motion does not state that Plaintiffs seek to add three additional claims for relief

14

based upon new theories against new defendants, although the proposed amended complaint so

15

indicates. (See Motion, Exh. A, ¶ 349-363 [adding a new tenth, eleventh, and twelfth claims].)

16
17

Based upon the foregoing, the request for an extension of time to respond, filed by
Defendants on June 12, 2012, is DENIED as moot.

18

This order terminates Dkt Nos. 218 and 232.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Date: June 14, 2012

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2