Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02075/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02075-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Penn 1st Financial Services, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2075-PHX-FJM

ORDER

This case was originally filed in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County

by First National Bank of Arizona (“FNBA”). When the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed receiver for First National Bank of Nevada, successor

in interest to FNBA, the FDIC removed the case to this court pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §

1819(b)(2)(B). Prior to removal, the state court issued a minute entry granting Penn 1st’s

motion to dismiss the complaint for FNBA’s failure to respond. At the time the motion to

dismiss was granted, the parties had agreed to extend the response deadline. We now have

before us the FDIC’s motion to lift that minute entry and allow it to amend the complaint

(doc. 5), Penn 1st’s response (doc. 8), and the FDIC’s reply (doc. 10). 

“[A]fter removal, the federal court takes the case up where the State court left it off.”

Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation

omitted). Pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., an order may be revised at any time before

Case 2:08-cv-02075-FJM Document 14 Filed 02/17/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

entry of final judgment. Based on the parties’ agreement to extend the time to respond, we

vacate the July 21, 2008 minute entry granting Penn 1st’s motion to dismiss.

Although leave is not required, we also grant the FDIC’s motion for leave to amend

the complaint. Under Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a “party may amend its pleading once as

a matter of course . . . before being served with a responsive pleading.” A motion to dismiss

is not a responsive pleading within the meaning of Rule 15(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a); RickMik Enters., Inc. v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 532 F.3d 963, 977 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, Penn 1st

has not filed an answer; it only filed a motion to dismiss. The FDIC may amend its pleading

as a matter of right, notwithstanding that a motion to dismiss was granted. Rick-Mik Enters.,

Inc., 532 F.3d at 977 (“Neither the filing nor granting of . . . a motion [to dismiss] before

answer terminates the right to amend.”) (citation omitted). We disagree with Penn 1st that

the proposed amendment would be futile.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the FDIC’s motion to set aside the July 21, 2008

minute entry and for leave to amend the complaint (doc. 5). Because there is no pending

application for fees and costs, IT IS ORDERED DENYING as moot the FDIC’s motion to

dismiss Penn 1st’s application (doc. 5). If there were such an application, it has been mooted

by this order.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02075-FJM Document 14 Filed 02/17/09 Page 2 of 2