Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this District, plaintiff’s opposition was due no

later than February 24, 2006. See Civil L. R. 7-3(a) (providing opposition to motion must be

filed no less than 21 days before hearing date).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SLEZAK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TCIF, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-3537 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

VACATING HEARINGS; CONTINUING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Before the Court is defendant Select Portfolio Servicing’s (“SPS”) motion to dismiss,

filed February 2, 2006 and scheduled for hearing March 17, 2006. On March 2, 2006,

plaintiff filed an untimely opposition,1

 which consists, in its entirety, of a request for leave to

file an amended complaint in “less than 3 weeks,” which request is noticed for hearing on

March 10, 2006.

Where no answer has been filed, a plaintiff may file one amended complaint without

leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, the March 10, 2006 hearing is

hereby VACATED as moot. Further, because the filing of an amended complaint would

moot SPS’s motion to dismiss the original complaint, see Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F. 2d

824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956), (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original, the latter being

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 20 Filed 03/06/06 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

treated thereafter as non-existent.”), and because, according to plaintiff’s description

thereof, the proposed amended complaint will address deficiencies identified by SPS in its

motion to dismiss, the Court VACATES the March 17, 2006 hearing on the motion to

dismiss and sets the following schedule:

1. No later than March 21, 2006, plaintiff shall file with the Clerk of the Court, and

serve on all defendants, his First Amended Complaint. If plaintiff has not filed a First

Amended Complaint by March 21, 2006, the Court will rule on SPS’s motion to dismiss the

original complaint.

2. The initial case management conference is CONTINUED from March 31, 2006 to

May 12, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. A joint case management statement shall be filed no later

than May 5, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 20 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2