Barry v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al

Filing 23

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/4/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

CLAUDIA BARRY,

Case No. 15-cv-04606-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
AMENDED COMPLAINT

9
10

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et
al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

[Re: ECF 22]

12
13

On January 27, 2016, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or respond

14

to Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss by February 9, 2016. ECF 18. On February 3, 2016,

15

the Court received a letter from Plaintiff. ECF 22. In that letter, Plaintiff states that her “amended

16

complaint was included with her request for leave to amend and it is the court’s oversight that it

17

was not recognized the first time. The plaintiff is including another copy of the identical

18

complaint as requested by the court.” Id. Plaintiff’s letter, however, did not include any

19

attachments.

20

Plaintiff fails to recognize her obligation to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff

21

mistakenly believes that attaching an amended complaint to a motion for leave to file an amended

22

complaint is the same as filing the complaint. Contrary to Plaintiff’s understanding and as the

23

Court has repeatedly indicated in its prior orders, after Plaintiff’s request to file an amended

24

complaint was granted, Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint. See ECF 17 at 1

25

(“Plaintiff shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint on or before January 12, 2016), ECF

26

18 at 1 (“Plaintiff is [ordered] to either file an amended complaint”).

27
28

Plaintiff’s recent letter indicates that her amended complaint is the same as the amended
complaint included with her motion for leave to file an amended complaint. ECF 22. In light of

1

Plaintiff’s pro se status and in the interests of judicial economy, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of

2

the Court to file the amended complaint included with Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the

3

complaint at Docket 16 as Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s First Amended

4

Complaint is deemed filed as of February 4, 2016. The Court MOOTS Defendant’s motion to

5

dismiss for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Defendant shall respond

6

to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint within the time limits prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil

7

Procedure 12.

8
9

Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Se Program, a free program that offers
limited legal services and advice to parties who are representing themselves. The Federal Pro Se
Program has offices in two locations, listed below. Help is provided by appointment and on a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

drop-in basis. Parties may make appointments by calling the program’s staff attorney, Mr. Kevin

12

Knestrick, at 408-297-1480. Additional information regarding the Federal Pro Se Program is

13

available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj.

14

Federal Pro Se Program
United States Courthouse
280 South 1st Street
2nd Floor, Room 2070
San Jose, CA 95113
Monday to Thursday 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Fridays by appointment only

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Federal Pro Se Program
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
152 North 3rd Street
3rd Floor
San Jose, CA 95112
Monday to Thursday 9:00 am – 12:00 pm
Fridays by appointment only

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2