Fay v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 29

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 24 Motion to Amend. Plaintiff is directed to e-file the Amended Complaint by 9/19/2011; 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: RENOTED to 9/23/2011. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

MICKEY L. FAY, JR.,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. C11-5458BHS

Plaintiff,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et
al.,

13

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s (“Fay”) motion to amend

16 complaint (Dkt. 24). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in
17 opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for
18 the reasons stated herein.
I. DISCUSSION

19
20

On June 16, 2011, the Court denied Fay’s motion for temporary restraining order

21 (“TRO”) and set a briefing schedule on the motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 4. On
22 June 22, 2011, the Court denied Fay’s second motion for TRO as duplicative to the first

ORDER - 1

1 TRO motion, which the Court had already denied. Dkt. 14 (treating the motion as one for
2 reconsideration).
3

The parties fully briefed the motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkts. 19

4 (opposition), 24 (reply). However, on July 26, 2011, Fay moved the Court to amend the
5 Complaint in this case. Dkt 24. The Court renoted the motion for preliminary injunction
6 and to amend the complaint for consideration on its calendar for August 12, 2011.
7 Defendants did not oppose Fay’s motion to amend.
8

Fay contends that good cause for amendment “arises as to new information and

9 recent developments in this matter.” Dkt. 24 at 1. While the proposed Amended
10 Complaint is on file, Fay failed to highlight for the Court the extent of the “new
11 information and recent developments” within the motion to amend. See Dkt. 24; see also
12 Dkt. 24, Ex. A (proposed Amended Complaint).
13

However, because Fay is proceeding pro se and because Defendants did not

14 oppose the motion, the Court will provide Fay with some latitude and permit amendment
15 of the Complaint as proposed. See id.
16

II. ORDER

17

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:

18

1.

Fay’s motion to amend the complaint (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED;

19

2.

Fay SHALL file the Amended Complaint on or before Monday, September

20 19, 2011;
21

3.

Defendants MAY AMEND their opposition to the motion for preliminary

22 injunction on or before Wednesday, September 21;

ORDER - 2

1

4.

Fay MAY FILE any supplementary reply brief on or before Friday,

2 September 23; and
3

5.

The Court RENOTES the motion for preliminary injunction to be

4 considered on Friday, September 23, 2011.
5

Dated this 13th day of September, 2011.

A

6
7

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3