Devlin et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 22

ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion to Strike ; granting 19 Motion to Withdraw ; denying 20 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 01/08/14. (emw)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00388-MR

WILLIAM N. DEVLIN and wife
CARRIE LUCKSAVAGE,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Supplemental Memorandum [Doc. 17]; the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw
Supplementation to their Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc.
19]; and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Supplement Response to Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 20].
The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
procedure.

[Doc. 12].

The Plaintiffs filed a timely Response to the

Defendant’s Motion [Doc. 14], and the Defendant filed a timely Reply [Doc.
15]. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Memorandum in support

of its Response.

[Doc. 16].

The Defendant moves to strike the

Supplemental Memorandum. [Doc. 17]. In response, the Plaintiff moves to
withdraw the Supplemental Memorandum [Doc. 19], and instead moves for
leave to supplement its Response and “disclose unto the court materials
and newly discovered evidence which support and confirm the allegations
contained in the Plaintiffs[’] complaint.” [Doc. 20 at 2].
The Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to supplement its Response is denied.
A Rule 12 motion to dismiss tests only the legal sufficiency of the
pleadings. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44 (4th
Cir. 1999). Evidentiary matters outside the pleadings have no bearing on
the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and therefore must be
disregarded at this stage of the litigation.

See Bostic v. Mader, No.

2:12cv87, 2013 WL 4079288, at *8 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2013).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Withdraw

Supplementation to their

Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 19] is
ALLOWED;
(2)

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Memorandum [Doc.
17] is DENIED AS MOOT; and

2

(3)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Supplement Response to Motion
to Dismiss [Doc. 20] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 8, 2014

3