Cody v. California Superior Court in and for Trinity County, 2:19-cv-02383-JAM-KJN (PS). (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200131851
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2020
Summary: ORDER (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 23.) KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court are defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and California Superior Court in and for Trinity County's respective motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6) as well as plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. (ECF No. 23.) While the court is skeptical of plaintiffs' claim that the present motion to amend is made as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), as 21 days have pas
Summary: ORDER (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 23.) KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court are defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and California Superior Court in and for Trinity County's respective motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6) as well as plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. (ECF No. 23.) While the court is skeptical of plaintiffs' claim that the present motion to amend is made as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), as 21 days have pass..
More
ORDER
(ECF Nos. 5, 6, 23.)
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court are defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and California Superior Court in and for Trinity County's respective motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6) as well as plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. (ECF No. 23.)
While the court is skeptical of plaintiffs' claim that the present motion to amend is made as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), as 21 days have passed since defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on December 23, 2019, the court GRANTS leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Considering this is plaintiffs' first request to amend, the stage of the present litigation, and the guidance to freely grant leave to amend pleadings, the court determines leave is appropriate in the present case.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint is GRANTED, the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) filed alongside plaintiffs' motion is the now-operative complaint in this action.
2. Defendants' respective motions to dismiss are DENIED as moot, and the hearing on those motions scheduled for February 20, 2020, is VACATED. Defendants shall have the time allowed by Rule 15 to respond to plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
