Reed v. US Bancorp et al

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 8 Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Referring Case to ADR Unit for Assessment Telephone Conference. The hearing set December 16, 2014 is VACATED. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CAROL VERES REED,

Case No. 14-cv-04715-YGR

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

US BANCORP, ET AL.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2)
REFERRING CASE TO ADR UNIT FOR
ASSESSMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

I.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
On October 30, 2014, defendants U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association filed a

14

motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on a number of grounds. (Dkt. No. 8

15

(“Mot.”).) The motion is now fully briefed. The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the

16

parties in connection with the motion and has determined that it is appropriate for decision without

17

oral argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.

18

See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724,

19

729 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the hearing set for December 16, 2014 is VACATED. Having

20

considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the reasons set forth

21

below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

22

In her opposition brief,1 plaintiff Carol Veres Reed “acknowledges that there are some

23

inaccuracies in the original complaint and that her husband is willing to be joined as a co-plaintiff,

24

if necessary. . . . She requests permission to amend the complaint.” (Dkt. No. 11 (“Oppo.”) at 3.)

25

Plaintiff provides a non-exhaustive list of these “inaccuracies,” including the purportedly mistaken

26

allegation that only 1.5 years, instead of 2.5 years, has elapsed while plaintiff has waited for a loan

27
1

28

Defendants note plaintiff’s opposition brief was untimely filed. Plaintiff is admonished
to comply with all applicable rules and deadlines in the future.

1

modification decision. (Id. at 8) Plaintiff further states that because the case was removed from

2

state court, where different pleadings standards apply, she should be entitled to amend the

3

complaint to comport with the requisite pleading standards in federal court. (Id.) In light of these

4

concessions, the Court grants the motion to dismiss.
Grant or denial of leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of the court. Swanson v.

5
6

U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). Leave to amend should be allowed freely

7

“unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged

8

pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture

9

Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has indicated that she will address certain
inaccuracies and inadequacies if granted leave to amend. The Court cannot assess fully at this

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

early stage whether a denial of leave to amend should be granted on futility grounds. Therefore,

12

plaintiff may file an amended complaint correcting these issues by January 30, 2015.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

II.

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO ADR UNIT FOR ASSESSMENT TELEPHONE
CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR Local Rule 2-3, the Court refers this

mortgage-related action to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Unit for a telephone
conference to assess this case=s suitability for mediation or a settlement conference. Plaintiff’s and
defendants’ counsel shall participate in a telephone conference, to be scheduled by the ADR Unit,
as soon as possible but no later than January 16, 2015.
The ADR Unit will notify the parties of the date and time the telephone conference will be

20

held. After the telephone conference, the ADR Unit will advise the Court of its recommendation

21

for further ADR proceedings.

22

This Order terminates Docket No. 8.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: December 12, 2014

25

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

26
27

cc: ADR Unit

28
2