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

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 61 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer; Denying as moot 64 Motion to Appear by Telephone. The Court VACATES the motion hearing set for January 21, 2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 MARILYN POSTLEWAITE; PAMELA POSTLEWAITE, Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER v. 13 14 Case No.: 12-CV-4465 YGR WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; NDEX WEST, LLC, 15 Defendants. 16 Now before the Court is the motion of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by 17 18 merger with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB and World 19 Savings Bank, FSB ("Wells"), to file an amended answer to Plaintiff's complaint. (Dkt. No. 61 20 ("Motion").) Wells's Motion seeks leave to add two affirmative defenses omitted from its initial 21 answer. Wells filed its Motion on December 13, 2013. Accordingly, under this Court's Civil Local 22 Rule 7-3(a), the deadline for Plaintiffs to oppose the Motion was December 27, 2013. To date, 23 Plaintiffs have filed no opposition.1 The Motion, being unopposed, and good cause appearing, is GRANTED. Sonoma Cnty. 24 25 Ass'n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (leave to amend 26 1 27 28 Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(b), if Plaintiffs opted not to oppose the Motion, they were required to file with the Court a statement of non-opposition "within the time for filing and serving any opposition." Plaintiffs are on notice that further failures to practice before this Court in accordance with the applicable Local Rules may provide grounds for sanctions. Civ. L.R. 1-4; 11-4(a)(2). 1 is presumptively granted absent either a showing of prejudice or a strong showing of delay, bad 2 faith, futility of amendment, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies through amendment); Eminence 3 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice is the preeminent, 4 "touchstone" factor); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987) ("The 5 party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice."). 6 7 The Court VACATES the motion hearing set for January 21, 2014. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Wells's motion to appear telephonically at that hearing (Dkt. No. 64) is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 61 and 64. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Date: January 6, 2014 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?