Alley v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Amend and denying as moot Defendants' 6 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definitive Statement. The Court will construe Alley's Proposed Amended Complaint the operative complaint. Dkt. # 10 . Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via the USPS

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ESTHER L. ALLEY,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

Case No. 16-1796-RAJ
ORDER

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Selene Finance, LP and MERS,

16

Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definitive Statement (Dkt.

17

# 6) and pro se Plaintiff Esther L. Alley’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. # 8). For the reasons

18

that follow, the Court GRANTS Alley’s motion and DENIES as moot Defendants’

19

motion.

20

On November 18, 2016, Alley filed the instant action alleging misconduct by

21

several entities connected to a mortgage foreclosure. Dkt. # 1-1. She also requested

22

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Court granted her request. Dkt. # 2.

23

Two of the defendants, Selene Finance, LP and MERS, Inc., have since moved for

24

dismissal or a more definite statement. Dkt. # 6. In response, Alley requests that she be

25

permitted to amend her complaint. Dkt. # 8. In connection with her request, she filed a

26

proposed amended complaint. Dkt. # 10.

27
28

Because it has been more than twenty-one days since Alley filed her complaint,
ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

she may not file an amended complaint as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
Instead, she must obtain the Court’s leave. Under Rule 15(a)(2), the Court must “freely
give” leave to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
“[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health
Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians
v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)).
Consistent with this policy, and considering Alley’s status as a pro se litigant, the
Court finds that Alley is entitled to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Alley’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. # 8) and DENIES as moot Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definitive Statement (Dkt. # 6). The
Court will construe Alley’s Proposed Amended Complaint the operative complaint.
Dkt. # 10.

13
14

DATED this 25th day of May, 2017.

15
16

A

17
18

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2