Robinson v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 13 motion to amend complaint. Ms. Robinson's amended complaint (Dkt. ## 13 -1, 13 -2) is now the operative complaint in this proceeding. Accordingly, the court denies BOA's motion to dismiss Ms. Robinso n's original complaint as moot (Dkt. # 7 ). The court further DIRECTS Ms. Robinson to file her response, if any, to the second motion to dismiss no later than Monday, April 17, 2017. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via the USPS

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 BARBARA ROBINSON, CASE NO. C17-0061JLR Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., 14 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court are: (1) Defendant Bank of America’s (“BOA”) motion to 17 dismiss for failure to state a claim (1st MTD (Dkt. # 7)); and (2) Plaintiff Barbara 18 Robinson’s motion to amend her complaint (MTA (Dkt. # 13)). No party has filed an 19 opposition to Ms. Robinson’s motion (see generally Dkt.), and the time for doing so has 20 now expired, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3). Defendants Wells Fargo Bank 21 National Association, As Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the MLMI Trust, 22 ORDER - 1 1 Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificate Series 2005 WMC2 (“Wells Fargo”), Mortgage 2 Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”), 3 and Jay Bray state that they do not object to Ms. Robinson’s amended complaint. (See 2d 4 MTD (Dkt. # 19) at 2). Accordingly, the court GRANTS Ms. Robinson’s motion. As a 5 result, BOA’s motion to dismiss Ms. Robinson’s original complaint is now moot, and the 6 court DENIES BOA’s motion on that ground. 7 8 9 II. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS On January 13, 2017, Wells Fargo, Nationstar, MERS, and Mr. Bray removed this action from King County Superior Court to federal court. (Notice of Rem. (Dkt. # 1).) 10 On January 20, 2017, BOA filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Robinson’s complaint. (See 1st 11 MTD.) On February 3, 2017, Ms. Robinson filed a motion to amend her complaint. (See 12 MTA.) On March 30, Wells Fargo, MERS, Nationstar, and Mr. Bray filed a second 13 motion to dismiss Ms. Robinson’s proposed amended complaint. (See 2d MTD.) In their 14 motion, Wells Fargo, MERS, Nationstar and Mr. Bray state that they do not object to Ms. 15 Robinson’s amended complaint. (Id. at 2.) 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party 17 may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a 18 [required] responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 19 12(b) . . . whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Ms. Robinson filed her 20 motion to amend her complaint within 21 days of BOA’s motion to dismiss. (See 1st 21 MTD; MTA.) Accordingly, Ms. Robinson may amend her complaint “as a matter of 22 course” this one time, and the court, therefore, grants her motion to amend. ORDER - 2 1 Ms. Robinson’s amended complaint (Dkt. ## 13-1, 13-2) is now the operative 2 complaint in this proceeding and supersedes Ms. Robinson’s original complaint. See 3 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (recognizing “the 4 general rule . . . that an amended complaint supercedes [sic] the original complaint and 5 renders it without legal effect”). Because Ms. Robinson’s original complaint no longer 6 has any legal effect, BOA’s motion to dismiss that complaint is moot. Accordingly, the 7 court denies BOA’s motion on that ground. 8 9 Presently pending is a second motion to dismiss by Wells Fargo, MERS, Nationstar, and Mr. Bray. (See 2d MTD.) The noting date for the second motion is April 10 21, 2017. (See id. at 1.) The court directs Ms. Robinson to file her response to the 11 second motion to dismiss no later than Monday, April 17, 2017. See Local Rules W.D. 12 Wash. 7(d)(3) (“Any opposition papers shall be filed and served not later than the 13 Monday before the noting date.”). Although Ms. Robinson may seek leave to further 14 amend her complaint in her response to the second motion to dismiss, the court will 15 decline to entertain any further motions to amend the complaint until after the court 16 resolves the pending second motion to dismiss. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 Based on the foregoing analysis, the court GRANTS Ms. Robinson’s motion to 19 amend her complaint (Dkt. # 13). Ms. Robinson’s amended complaint (Dkt. ## 13-1, 20 13-2) is now the operative complaint in this proceeding. Accordingly, the court DENIES 21 BOA’s motion to dismiss Ms. Robinson’s original complaint as moot (Dkt. # 7). The 22 ORDER - 3 1 court further DIRECTS Ms. Robinson to file her response, if any, to the second motion to 2 dismiss no later than Monday, April 17, 2017. 3 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2017. 4 5 A 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 4

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?