Tate v. Sallie Mae, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying without prejudice 7 Motion to Dismiss; granting 14 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint; denying 18 Motion to Strike. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 5/9/2011. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10-CV-386
DONNA TATE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SALLIE MAE, INC and SLM FINANCIAL
)
CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [D.I. 7],
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint [D.I. 14], and Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [D.I. 18]. For the reasons laid out below, the Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is
GRANTED and the Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED.
The Defendants are correct that the Plaintiff has completely confused the record of this
case, making it more difficult both for the Defendants and for this Court. However, in the
interest of efficiency and fairness, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is granted. While the Court
appreciates the Defendants’ frustration in this matter, the liberal construction of Rule 15(a)
instructs this Court to allow parties to amend their complaints in most circumstances. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a). Rather than deal with Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on certain of the Plaintiff’s
claims and then allow Defendants to respond to any additional allegations, the Court finds it
more efficient and fair to both parties to deal with all allegations at once. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
1

Amended Complaint is allowed [D.I. 16] and Defendants’ Motion to Strike is denied. In
accordance with their request, Defendants are granted 20 days from the date of this Order to file
a responsive pleading. The Plaintiff is reminded that the requirement under the Local Rules to
confer with counsel on the filing of a motion is not to be done after the filing of the motion;
Plaintiff’s Notice of Certification and Report of Consultation is unacceptable and will not be
tolerated in the future. [D.I. 16]. Plaintiff is warned that further amendments to the Complaint
or behavior such as lack of consultation will not be looked upon favorably by this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 9, 2011

2