Gibson et al v. Fieldstone Mortgage Company et al

Filing 28

ORDERED Ps' # 21 Motion to add indispensable party is DENIED without prejudice. In light of this ruling, Ds' # 22 Motion to strike is DENIED as moot. Ps' # 21 Motion for an extension to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Ps shall file an amended complaint on or before Monday, December 12, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 12/5/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) (Main Document 28 replaced on 12/5/2011) (DRM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
EDWARD BRANFORD GIBSON, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE COMPANY, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
PRESENT:

3:11-CV-0176-ECR (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
December 5, 2011

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is plaintiffs' motion to add indispensable party and to extend time to amend
(#21). Defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiff's motion to add indispensable party (#22) and
opposed plaintiffs' motion to extend time to amend (#23). Plaintiffs opposed the motion to strike
(#24) and filed a reply in support of their motion to add indispensable party (#25). Defendants
replied in support of their motion to strike (#27).
On October 12, 2011, the District Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' complaint (#17). The court dismissed several of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice,
but granted leave to amend the first, second, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth claims for relief and
gave plaintiffs until November 2, 2011, to filed an amended complaint. Id. Plaintiffs did not do so;
instead, they filed the motion to add indispensable party, along with the request for an extension of
time to file an amended complaint.
Since the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint, there is no operative complaint on
file with the Clerk of Court. The plaintiffs cannot seek leave to add a party to a complaint that does
not exist. Defendants cannot evaluate whether the proposed indispensable party is a proper party
until they are able to review an amended complaint. The District Court already gave plaintiffs a
deadline to file an amended complaint, which has passed. This Court will grant plaintiffs one final
extension to file the amended complaint.

Based upon the foregoing, and good cause appearing, plaintiffs' motion to add indispensable
party (#21) is DENIED without prejudice. In light of this ruling, defendants' motion to strike (#22)
is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs' motion for an extension to file an amended complaint (#21) is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before Monday, December 12, 2011.
Should plaintiffs refile their motion to add indispensable party, defendants shall have leave to file
an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, having the benefit of the amended complaint and that
motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk