Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kozlowski v. Bank of America, N.A., 1:18-cv-00131-DAD-EPG. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180625648 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On June 5, 2018, the court dismissed defendants Equifax, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc., and TransUnion LLC from this action, having found that plaintiff's first amended complaint appeared to have abandoned any claims or causes of action against those defendants. (Doc. No. 49.) The court therefore directed the Clerk of the Court to terminate those defendants f
More

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

On June 5, 2018, the court dismissed defendants Equifax, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc., and TransUnion LLC from this action, having found that plaintiff's first amended complaint appeared to have abandoned any claims or causes of action against those defendants. (Doc. No. 49.) The court therefore directed the Clerk of the Court to terminate those defendants from this case. (Id.)

On June 21, 2018, plaintiff notified the court, in a filing styled as a request for judicial notice, that plaintiff did not intend to abandon her claims against the terminated defendants. (Doc. No. 52.) Plaintiff states that she believed she had been permitted to file a first amended complaint only against defendants Bank of America, N.A., The Moore Law Group, and Harvey M. Moore.1 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also requests further leave to amend the complaint to include the terminated defendants. (Id.)

Finding good cause, and in consideration of plaintiff's pro se status, the court will grant plaintiff's request for leave to amend to file a second amended complaint. However, the court once again advises plaintiff, as it previously did in its May 4, 2018 order:

[T]he court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires any amended complaint to be complete in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in any amended complaint plaintiff elects to file, she must (1) name each defendant in the caption, (2) identify each defendant in the body of the complaint and of each claim, and (3) sufficiently allege the involvement of each defendant, just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case. Finally, any amended complaint filed by plaintiff must include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events which underlie her claims.

(Doc. No. 47 at 13.)

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the service of this order; and 2. Any failure by plaintiff to file an amended complaint within the time provided will likely result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to abide by the court's orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

FootNotes


1. Defendants Equifax, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc., and TransUnion LLC filed answers to plaintiff's original complaint. (Doc. Nos. 22, 26, 27, 29.) Defendants Bank of America, N.A., The Moore Law Group, and Harvey M. Moore were the only defendants who moved to dismiss plaintiff's original complaint. (Doc. Nos. 14, 15.) Thus, the court's May 4, 2018 order granting defendants' motions to dismiss and granting plaintiff leave to amend did not address plaintiff's causes of action brought against defendants Equifax, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc., and TransUnion LLC. (See Doc. No. 47.)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer