Filed: Jun. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2013
Summary: ORDER SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. Plaintiff Robert Chandler ("Plaintiff") filed his complaint in this matter on August 3, 2011. ECF No. 1. ("Compl."). On October 4, 2011, Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, "Defendants") moved to dismiss. ECF No. 25 ("Mot."). The motion was fully briefed and scheduled for a hearing on January 13, 2012. ECF Nos. 29, 33. The Court deferred ruling on the Motion pending the outcome of the parties' mediation
Summary: ORDER SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. Plaintiff Robert Chandler ("Plaintiff") filed his complaint in this matter on August 3, 2011. ECF No. 1. ("Compl."). On October 4, 2011, Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, "Defendants") moved to dismiss. ECF No. 25 ("Mot."). The motion was fully briefed and scheduled for a hearing on January 13, 2012. ECF Nos. 29, 33. The Court deferred ruling on the Motion pending the outcome of the parties' mediation e..
More
ORDER
SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.
Plaintiff Robert Chandler ("Plaintiff") filed his complaint in this matter on August 3, 2011. ECF No. 1. ("Compl."). On October 4, 2011, Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, "Defendants") moved to dismiss. ECF No. 25 ("Mot."). The motion was fully briefed and scheduled for a hearing on January 13, 2012. ECF Nos. 29, 33. The Court deferred ruling on the Motion pending the outcome of the parties' mediation efforts. ECF No. 45.
The parties recently filed a joint case management statement, indicating that they have been unable to reach agreement on some key terms. ECF No. 57. Both parties now agree that litigation should resume. Id. Plaintiff proposes that he be permitted until July 18, 2013 to move for leave to file an amended complaint so that he can provide additional allegations concerning the two years since the original complaint. Id. Defendants submit that, absent a showing that the proposed amendments will cure the purported pleading defects, the Court should consider the motion to dismiss before entertaining a motion for leave to amend.
The Court finds that the most efficient solution is to consider Plaintiff's Rule 15 motion first. The proposed amended complaint may cure some of the deficiencies identified by Defendants' motion to dismiss. Further, as the Court is generally required to grant leave to amend to cure pleading deficiencies, allowing Plaintiff to amend now may obviate the need to adjudicate multiple motions to dismiss.
Plaintiff shall file a Rule 15 motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7 within twenty-one (21) days of the signature date of this Order. Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint should attempt to cure any legitimate pleading defects identified in Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. If the Court denies Plaintiff's Rule 15 motion, or Plaintiff fails to file one, the Court will take Defendants' currently pending motion to dismiss under submission. The case management conference previously scheduled for June 14, 2013 is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
