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

Filing 19

ORDER re amended complaint. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 4/25/2014. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2014)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
EDWARD LAWRENCE,
6
Plaintiff,

No. C 14-1272 PJH

7
v.

ORDER RE AMENDED COMPLAINT

8
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
9
Defendant.
_______________________________/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendant in the above-captioned case filed a motion to dismiss on March 26, 2014,
12
and served the motion upon plaintiff’s counsel on the same day. Plaintiff did not file an
13
opposition to the motion, and instead filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2014. The
14
amended complaint was filed two days later than was permitted under Federal Rule of Civil
15
Procedure 15(a)(1), and thus, was improperly filed. However, it would be a waste of the
16
court’s and the parties’ resources to go forward with a hearing on the motion to dismiss the
17
original complaint. Accordingly, the court suggests that defendant withdraw its motion to
18
dismiss the original complaint, as it is likely that, even if the motion were to be granted,
19
plaintiff would be given leave to amend his complaint anyway. If defendant does withdraw
20
its motion to dismiss the original complaint, and later moves to dismiss the amended
21
complaint, the court will evaluate the amended complaint as a pleading that has been
22
amended once already.
23
Defendant shall either withdraw the motion to dismiss the original complaint or
24
advise the court that it wishes to go forward with the hearing no later than May 1, 2014.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: April 25, 2014
27
28

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge