Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00037/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00037-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Issam Mansour, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp.;

Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc.; and Aurora Loan Services,

LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-37-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants in state court on December 12, 2008.

Dkt. #1-2 at 5-18. The complaint asserts violations of various federal statutes in connection

with a mortgage loan and foreclosure proceedings. Id. The case has been removed to this

Court. Dkt. #1.

Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and Aurora Loan

Services, LLC have filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. #8. Defendant Cal-Western

Reconveyance Corporation has joined the motion. Dkt. #9. Plaintiff has filed a motion for

leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. #12. Plaintiff agrees to voluntarily dismiss the RICO

claim and concedes that some of the other claims could be amended to comport with federal

law. Id. Plaintiff requests leave to provide a more definite statement of his claims. Id.

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend his

pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served[.]”

Case 2:09-cv-00037-DGC Document 14 Filed 02/06/09 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 -

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because a motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading” within the

meaning of the rule, see Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393,

1401 (9th Cir. 1986), Plaintiff does not need leave of Court to file his proposed amended

complaint. See Dkt. #13. The Clerk will be directed to file the lodged proposed amended

complaint. In light of the filing of the amended complaint, the motion to dismiss the original

complaint will be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint (Dkt. #12) is denied as moot.

2. The Clerk is directed to filed the proposed lodged amended complaint

(Dkt. #13).

3. The motion to dismiss the original complaint (Dkt. #8) is denied as moot. 

DATED this 6th day of February, 2009.

 

Case 2:09-cv-00037-DGC Document 14 Filed 02/06/09 Page 2 of 2