Frederick v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

Filing 20

ORDER that the Motion for Enlargement of Time to File First Amended Complaint 19 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is given leave to amend his Complaint by June 1, 2012. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/9/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

ROBERT A. FREDERICK,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6
7
8
9
10

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-00522-GMN-PAL
ORDER

This is a foreclosure case filed by pro se Plaintiff Robert A. Frederick, against Defendants

11

Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp.

12

(“Cal-Western”), Aurora Loan Servicing, LLC (“Aurora”), Centex Mortgage Services

13

(“Centex”), MERSCORP, Inc. (“MERSCORP”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

14

(MERS), and Shalom Rubanowitz, an individual.

15

On April 18, 2012, the Court entered its Order (ECF No. 18) granting Defendants’ Motion

16

to Dismiss (ECF No. 8), and giving Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint consistent with the

17

Court’s Order by May 14, 2012. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement

18

of Time to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19), which was filed on May 8, 2012.

19

In the Court’s Order, Plaintiff was given leave to amend his Complaint solely as to three

20

causes of action alleged in his Complaint: (1) Violations of Unfair Lending Practices – NRS

21

598(D); (2) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud and Conversion; and (3) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

22

Related to the MERS System. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the first cause of action to the

23

extent that he might allege facts supporting tolling of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff was

24

given leave to amend the second and third causes of action to the extent that he might allege

25

fraud with the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Page 1 of 2

1

In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests ninety (90) additional days, at minimum, to amend

2

his complaint. Plaintiff states that the extension is necessary “due to new facts in evidence and

3

the need to compile all new documents.” Plaintiff does not state the nature of the “new facts in

4

evidence” or the “new documents,” nor does he explain how these facts and documents are

5

necessary to amend his complaint.

6

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s stated reasons for an enlargement of time do not provide

7

sufficient basis for a 90-day extension. However, because Plaintiff filed the instant motion in a

8

timely manner and provided some explanation of the basis for his request, the Court finds that

9

good cause exists for a brief extension of the deadline.

10

Accordingly, the deadline for Plaintiff to file his first amended complaint will not be

11

extended for ninety (90) days, as requested. However, Plaintiff’s request for enlargement of time

12

will be granted, and Plaintiff will be given leave to file his first amended complaint by June 1,

13

2012.

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Enlargement of Time to File First

15

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is

16

given leave to amend his Complaint by June 1, 2012.

17

DATED this 9th day of May, 2012.

18
19

______________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2