Alley v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC et al
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ESTHER L. ALLEY,
Case No. 16-1796-RAJ
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Selene Finance, LP and MERS,
Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definitive Statement (Dkt.
# 6) and pro se Plaintiff Esther L. Alley’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. # 8). For the reasons
that follow, the Court GRANTS Alley’s motion and DENIES as moot Defendants’
On November 18, 2016, Alley filed the instant action alleging misconduct by
several entities connected to a mortgage foreclosure. Dkt. # 1-1. She also requested
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Court granted her request. Dkt. # 2.
Two of the defendants, Selene Finance, LP and MERS, Inc., have since moved for
dismissal or a more definite statement. Dkt. # 6. In response, Alley requests that she be
permitted to amend her complaint. Dkt. # 8. In connection with her request, she filed a
proposed amended complaint. Dkt. # 10.
Because it has been more than twenty-one days since Alley filed her complaint,
ORDER – 1
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.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER – 2
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?