Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06963/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06963-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY GUILLORY and FELISE

GUILLORY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WFS FINANCIAL, INC., WESTERN

FINANCIAL BANK, NELSON &

KENNARD, and ACTION AUTO

RECOVERY,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06963 JSW

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO

CLARIFY ORDER AND

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

The Court has received Plaintiffs’ request to clarify its order dated March 21, 2007. The

Court’s order granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to include a claim under

California Civil Code § 2981. Plaintiffs now seek to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to include a claim against Defendant Nelson & Kennard under the

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend its pleading once as a

matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Once a responsive pleading

has been served, however, amendment requires written consent of the adverse party or leave of

the court. In accordance with the Federal Rule’s liberal pleading standard, leave of the court

“shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Although the decision to

grant or deny a motion for leave to amend is within the district court’s discretion, the general

rule is that amendment of the pleadings is permitted unless the opposing party makes a showing 

Case 3:06-cv-06963-JSW Document 31 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing side, or futility of amendment. Forman v.

Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 230 (1962); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.

1986). 

The FDCPA “applies to attorneys who ‘regularly’ engage in consumer-debt-collection

activity.” Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 299 (1995). Here, Plaintiffs allege that Nelson &

Kennard are a law firm in the business of regularly collecting consumer debts. (Opp. Br. to

Nelson & Kennard Motion to Dismiss at 4.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have

satisfied the liberal standard of Rule 15(a). Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint to add a

claim against Nelson & Kennard for violation of the FDCPA. Plaintiffs shall file their Second

Amended Complaint within five days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall file responsive

pleadings within twenty days after service of the Second Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06963-JSW Document 31 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2