Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01585/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01585-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE NORMAN HARMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01585-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

VACATING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 15, 46

On August 9, 2016 plaintiff Dale Harms moved for leave to file a First Amended 

Complaint. Dkt. No 46. A court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a). “Although the rule should be interpreted with ‘extreme liberality,’ leave to amend is not 

to be granted automatically.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [ ] factors, there exists a 

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. 

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that leave to amend would be futile as Harms’s 

proposed amended complaint does not include any viable claims. Dkt. No. 51. at 7. Defendants 

raise some strong critiques of Harms’s proposed amended complaint, but given the liberal 

standard for granting leave, that Harms has not previously amended his complaint and that he is 

representing himself in this proceeding, I GRANT Harms’s motion for leave to file a First 

Amended Complaint. 

Harms will have 10 days to file his amended complaint. He may file the proposed 

amended complaint he submitted with his motion or he may revise it to further address the 

critiques defendants raise. I am not deciding whether I would have granted defendants’ pending 

Case 4:16-cv-01585-CW Document 58 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion on the merits, but I strongly advise Harms to be sure he alleges sufficient facts addressing 

defendants’ argument that he cannot state a plausible claim; I may not allow him to make a third 

attempt if the next amendment is not sufficient. Because I GRANT Harms’s motion for leave to 

amend, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as moot. The hearing set 

for September 14, 2016 on these motions is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01585-CW Document 58 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2