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
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?