Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02133/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02133-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE BARNES MARKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02133 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

the Court’s February 6, 2008 Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff would like the Court to reconsider its dismissal without leave to amend of plaintiff’s fourth

cause of action against defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, as well as its dismissal without leave to amend

of plaintiff’s fifth cause of action against defendant DB Structured Products. Despite a lack of such

allegations in her first two complaints, plaintiff argues that Ocwen actually may have been an owner of

the loan, and that DB actually may have been a servicer of the loan. In so arguing, plaintiff does not

present any new facts or arguments to the Court. Accordingly, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, the

Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. However, the

motion is denied WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff bringing a subsequent motion for leave to amend

should discovery unveil new facts that support plaintiff’s contentions about Ocwen and DB having been

both loan servicers and owners.

Plaintiff also requests an extension of time in which to file her second amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint on or

Case 3:07-cv-02133-SI Document 75 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

before March 28, 2008, and defendants shall have 30 days to answer or otherwise respond to the

amended complaint. Defendants’ motion for sanctions against plaintiff are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: March 20, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02133-SI Document 75 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 2