Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02053/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02053-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 42:1475 Declaratory &amp; Injunctive Relief - Foreclosure Procedures

---

1 

16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS) 

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 

PERLITA NEWMAN, and GEORGE 

NEWMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

 On June 8, 2018, with leave of Court, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, 

(“SAC,” ECF No. 18). On May 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a separate document titled 

“Plaintiffs submit the following information for judicial notice and question.” (ECF No. 

20.) Plaintiffs submitted an exhibit and asked whether the Court would “prefer” they add 

the document to their current complaint or file a new complaint in state court. (Id. at 3.) 

The Court cannot provide Plaintiffs legal advice and does not address this question. 

 On June 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed another supplemental document, titled “Plaintiffs 

submit the following information for the second judicial notice as an update on the 4th 

latest foreclosure/eviction attempt.” (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiffs attached a second exhibit. 

Plaintiffs state they “formally request that the U.S. Bank, and its attorney, the Naiman Law 

Group, be added in” to this case. (Id. at 2.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02053-JLS-WVG Document 25 Filed 06/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS) 

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

 The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” or “fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court declines to look at multiple 

filings by Plaintiffs, filed after their Complaint, in screening their Complaint. The Court 

therefore will allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to include all of their allegations in one 

document before the Court screens Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

The Court construes Plaintiffs’ request and supplemental “information” as a motion 

for leave to amend their complaint. Leave to amend is freely given. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend their Second Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiffs MAY FILE a third amended complaint on or before July 5, 2018. Plaintiffs are 

cautioned that should they choose to file a third amended complaint, it must be complete 

by itself, comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and that any claim, against any 

and all defendants not re-alleged will be considered waived. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 

693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to 

amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not 

repled”). Plaintiffs must specify which claims are brought against which defendants. 

If Plaintiffs file a third amended complaint within the time frame set forth above, the 

Court will screen that complaint. If Plaintiffs fail to file a third amended complaint, the 

Court will screen the operative second amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 13, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02053-JLS-WVG Document 25 Filed 06/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2