Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00050/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00050-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

– 1 – 19cv50

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HILARIO GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 19-cv-0050-BAS-AGS

ORDER TERMINATING 

PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS

[ECF No. 5]

v.

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

In the wake of Defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC’s (“Bayview”) 

pending motion to dismiss filed on March 21, 2019, (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff Hilario 

Gonzales filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on April 23, 2019 (ECF No. 8). 

A day later, Plaintiff “withdrew” that version of the FAC (ECF No. 9) and filed a 

second version of the FAC, (ECF No. 10). Although Plaintiff has violated Rule 15 

in filing the FAC, the Court will permit the FAC and will terminate the pending 

motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

In plain terms, Rule 15 sets forth the circumstances in which a party may 

amend his pleadings. Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend his pleadings once as a 

matter of course within 21 days of service, or 21 days after service of a responsive 

Case 3:19-cv-00050-BAS-AGS Document 11 Filed 04/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 19cv50

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

pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A)–(B). “In all 

other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written 

consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Plaintiff’s FAC is improper under each of these provisions. First, Plaintiff 

can no longer amend his pleadings as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(A). 

Because Plaintiff filed this case on January 8, 2019, (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff had until 

January 29, 2019 to file an amended pleading as a matter of course. The FAC comes 

nearly three months after this deadline. Second, Plaintiff’s FAC is untimely under 

Rule 15(a)(1)(B) because Bayview filed and served its motion to dismiss on March 

21, 2019. (ECF No. 5.) Under the Rule, Plaintiff had until April 11, 2019 to file an 

amended pleading in response to the motion to dismiss. The present FAC comes 

nearly two weeks after the deadline. Plaintiff did not request an extension of time. 

Third, Plaintiff makes no indication that he received consent from Bayview to file 

the FAC, nor has Plaintiff requested permission from this Court to file the FAC. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s FAC is improper under Rule 15(a)(2). Under these circumstances, 

it would be entirely proper for the Court to strike the FAC. See Ibrahim v. United 

States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 1048, 1065 (9th Cir. 2016) (“District courts 

have the inherent power to strike items from their docket for litigation conduct.”); 

Frank v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. EDCV 16-02126-JGB (DTBx), 2017 WL 

8116460, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017) (striking improperly filed first amended 

complaint).

However, this Court “possesses inherent power over the administration of its 

business.” Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995). This power 

includes the authority to promulgate and enforce rules for the management of 

litigation and its docket. Id. (citation omitted). It is evident that Plaintiff filed the 

FAC in response to Bayview’s pending motion to dismiss because Plaintiff has not 

Case 3:19-cv-00050-BAS-AGS Document 11 Filed 04/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 19cv50

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

filed any opposition to the motion. Under these circumstances and in the interest of 

judicial economy, the Court will permit the FAC. Generally, “an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Because 

Bayview’s motion to dismiss is directed to a pleading that is no longer the operative 

pleading, it is appropriate to terminate the motion. 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court TERMINATES Bayview’s pending 

motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) This termination is not an adjudication on the 

merits of the arguments raised in Bayview’s motion. The Court sua sponte extends 

Bayview’s time to respond to the FAC. Bayview may file a motion to dismiss the 

FAC (ECF No. 10) no later than May 22, 2019. 

As a final matter, Plaintiff SHALL NOT file amended pleadings unless this 

Court gives him permission to do so first or Defendants have provided their 

written consent to the filing of an amended pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

This includes improper use of a notice of withdrawal to file additional versions of 

pleadings. The Court will strike from the docket any pleadings which do not comply 

with this Order and, if appropriate, will consider whether sanctions are warranted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 25, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00050-BAS-AGS Document 11 Filed 04/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3