Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01187/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01187-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

LEONARD VAUGHN OLIPHANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01187-HSG 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 36

On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff Leonard Vaughn Oliphant filed an Opposition to the Motion to 

Dismiss filed by Defendants Brian T. Moynihan and Bruce R. Thompson. Dkt. No. 36. 

Oliphant’s Opposition does not substantively address the arguments contained in Defendants’ 

Motion. Instead, Oliphant argues that—despite filing a timely motion to dismiss—Moynihan and 

Thompson were still required to file an Answer to Oliphant’s Amended Complaint and, having not 

done so, “are squarely in default.” Id. at 6. Oliphant is mistaken.

A motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure automatically alters the 

time for filing a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4) (responsive pleading due 14

days after notice of the court’s action on the interim motion); see also Benjamin v. California 

Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:12-CV-0392 WBS KJN, 2013 WL 1563336, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 

12, 2013) (“[The deadline to file a responsive pleading] is suspended pending the court’s decision 

on an interim responsive motion.”); Sobayo v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. C 09-00615 JW, 2009 

WL 1330834, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2009) (“Under Rule 12(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, a motion to dismiss pursuant to [Rule] 12(b)(6) alters the time for filing a responsive 

pleading.”); Douglas v. Executive Bd. of the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, No. 

CV08159SEJLLMB, 2008 WL 4809910, at *1 (D. Idaho Oct. 3, 2008) (“[A] timely motion to 

dismiss is a responsive pleading sufficient to prevent entry of a default judgment.”). Accordingly, 

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 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

Moynihan and Thompson were not required to answer Oliphant’s Amended Complaint during the 

pendency of their Motion to Dismiss.

If Oliphant opposes the relief sought by Moynihan and Thompson on substantive grounds, 

he must file an Opposition providing the legal basis for his opposition no later than May 29, 2015. 

See Dkt. No. 35 (granting Oliphant’s second request for an extension of time). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 2