Taa et al v. Chase Home Finance, LLC et al

Filing 28

ORDER RE 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Leave to amend and file a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Second Amended Complaint presently appearing as Docket Item No. 27 shall not be filed and is hereby STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/28/2011. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/28/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-00554 EJD

DONATO TAA, et. al.,

11

ORDER RE: SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC., et. al.,
[Docket Item No. 27]

14
Defendant(s).
15
16

/
On September 1, 2011, the court received a document from Plaintiffs Donato Taa and Anita

17

Taa (“Plaintiffs”) entitled “Second Amended Complaint.” See Docket Item No. 27. The court

18

construes the receipt of the this document as Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their pleading

19

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).

20

Ordinarily, leave to amend is granted with liberality. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.

21

Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave need not be granted, however, where the

22

amendment of the complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith,

23

constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42

24

F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Roberts v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d 796, 798 (9th

25

Cir. 1981).

26

Here, Plaintiffs seeks to amend the complaint for a second time, apparently to correct certain

27

deficiencies noted by Defendants in the pending motion to dismiss. See Docket item No. 24. But

28

Plaintiffs have not provided information necessary for the court to properly evaluate this request.
1
Case No. 5:11-cv-00554 EJD
ORDER RE: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (EJDLC1)

1

While the court is cognizant of Plaintffs’ pro se status as well the policy favoring leave to amend, it

2

appears that granting leave to amend at this time will cause undue delay and undue prejudice to

3

Defendants.

4

Accordingly, leave to amend and file a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT

5

PREJUDICE. The court will revisit the issue of leave to amend when addressing Defendant’s

6

motion to dismiss, which is currently scheduled for hearing on October 21, 2011. The Second

7

Amended Complaint presently appearing as Docket Item No. 27 shall not be filed and is hereby

8

STRICKEN.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Dated: September 28, 2011
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 5:11-cv-00554 EJD
ORDER RE: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (EJDLC1)