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