Lopez v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC et al
OPINION AND ORDER re: 26 MOTION to Amend/Correct 19 Amended Complaint. filed by Elba M. Viera Lopez.Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file a second amended compla int by October 17, 2016. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 26. (As further set forth in this Order), ( Amended Pleadings due by 10/17/2016.) (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 9/23/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELBA M. VIERA LOPEZ,
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER
J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Elba M. Viera Lopez filed this action pro se on April 7, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Lopez asserted claims under federal consumer protection law, the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and state law.
She sought damages as well as declaratory relief that would invalidate Defendants’ interests in
her foreclosed residential and rental property and establish that she holds the property free of any
On April 20, 2016, this Court granted Lopez leave to amend on or before June 20, 2016
because the initial complaint was “insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.” (Dkt. No. 3
at 3.) On July 14, 2016, Defendants filed a joint letter observing that Lopez had failed to file an
amended complaint within the allotted time and asking that the action therefore be dismissed.
(Dkt. No. 10.) This Court granted Defendants’ motion. (Dkt. No. 11.) The very same day,
Lopez filed a motion seeking an extension, which this Court granted as a motion to reopen the
case and a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.)
Lopez then filed an amended complaint on August 8, 2016 (Dkt. No. 19), and
Defendants, in turn, filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21). Four weeks and one day later,
Lopez filed another motion asking for leave to amend or, in the alternative, an extension of time
to respond to Defendants’ motion. (Dkt. No. 26.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request should be denied because she missed the monthlong window to respond to their motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 27 at 1.) Additionally, they point
to Plaintiff’s use of “the same boilerplate reasoning that Plaintiff’s prior Motion for Leave to file
an Amended Complaint contained” to suggest that “this action is completely frivolous.” (Id.)
“The Court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 15(a)(2). Pro se submissions, in particular, must be construed liberally and read “to raise
the strongest arguments they suggest.” Ortiz v. McBride, 323 F.3d 191, 194 (2d Cir. 2003). The
Court has reviewed the submissions on this motion and finds that justice requires that Lopez
have the opportunity to amend her complaint in light of the delays she reports facing. However,
the Court is not inclined to grant further extensions or leave to amend absent compelling reasons.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiff is directed to file a second amended complaint by October 17, 2016.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 26.
Dated: September 23, 2016
New York, New York
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge
COPY MAILED TO PRO SE PARTY BY CHAMBERS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?