Willis v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 34 Motion to Vacate; rescinding 33 order dismissing the supplemental amended complaint; reinstating 30 amended complaint; granting Defendant's 31 Motion for Extension of Time; directing 32 motion to dismiss will be considered in due course and in turn, Plaintiff may treat his 34 Motion to Vacate as a response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss; Alternatively, setting date that Plaintiff may file a new or supplemental response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 11/25/2014. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

United States District Court
District Of Maryland
Chambers of
Ellen Lipton Hollander
District Court Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-0742

November 25, 2014
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL AND MR. WILLIS
Re:

Willis v. Bank of America Corporation et al.
Civil Action No. ELH-13-2615

Dear Mr. Willis and Counsel:
As you know, on October 7, 2014, plaintiff submitted a Supplemental Amended
Complaint (ECF 30, “Supplemental Amended Complaint”), with leave of the Court. On
November 10, 2014, defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time
for Defendant to Respond to the Supplemental Amended Complaint (ECF 31, “Motion for
Time”) as well as a Motion to Dismiss (ECF 32, “Motion to Dismiss”). By Order of November
10, 2014 (ECF 33), the Court granted defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, “provided, however, that
by November 24, 2014, plaintiff may file a motion to rescind the Order on the ground that it was
improvidently granted.” On November 24, 2014, plaintiff timely filed a Motion to Vacate Order
(ECF 34, “Motion to Vacate”), asking the Court to rescind its Order of November 10, 2014 (ECF
33).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (ECF 34) is GRANTED; the Order dismissing the
Supplemental Amended Complaint (ECF 33) is hereby RESCINDED; and the Supplemental
Amended Complaint (ECF 30) is reinstated. However, I shall also grant defendant’s Motion for
Time (ECF 31), as there is no prejudice to plaintiff in doing so.
I shall consider in due course the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 32), hereby deemed as filed
with leave of Court. In turn, plaintiff may treat his Motion to Vacate (ECF 34) as a response in
opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Alternatively, by December 12, 2014, plaintiff may file a
new or supplemental response to defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The reply, if any, shall be filed
in accordance with the applicable rules.
Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court and the
Clerk is directed to docket it as such.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge
Copy sent by first class mail to:
Winfield T. Willis
2816 Hillsdale Road
Baltimore, MD 21207