Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01219/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01219-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDIA SAINZ, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:10-cv-01219-GEB-EFB

)

v. ) ORDER

) 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AMERICAN )

SERVICING COMPANY, HSBC FINANCIAL )

as trustee for NOMURA ASSET )

ACCEPTANCE CORP., and DOES 1 )

through 10, inclusive, ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 2, 2010

without seeking leave to amend. Plaintiff filed her first amended

complaint on the same day Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

original complaint was submitted; Plaintiff failed to file an

opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion as required

by Local Rule 230(c). It appears that if Plaintiff was concerned

about the time involved with the undersigned judge’s consideration of

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff would have timely complied

with her filing obligation under Local Rule 230(c). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a): “A party may

amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days

after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is untimely since

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on May 25, 2010, over 21 days

before Plaintiff filed her amended complaint. Leave to amend is

normally sought via a noticed motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (“A

request for a court order must be made by motion.”). Nevertheless,

Case 2:10-cv-01219-GEB-EFB Document 9 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 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

2

for the sake of efficiency, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s

untimely amended complaint as a request for leave to amend her

complaint. Since this case is in its early stages, Plaintiff’s first

amended complaint is deemed filed as of the date this Order is filed

and the first amended complaint is the operative pleading on the date

this order is filed. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s original complaint (Docket No. 6) is denied as moot.

Dated: August 6, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-01219-GEB-EFB Document 9 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 2