Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02474/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02474-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL GONZALEZ, et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2474-LAB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[Docket no. 11.]

vs.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,

Defendant.

When Plaintiffs failed to respond to JP Morgan Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss, the

Court granted the unopposed motion and directed Plaintiffs, if they wished to file an

amended complaint, to show cause for their failure to file an opposition.

Plaintiffs on February 15 filed a motion for leave to amend (“Motion to Amend”).

(Docket no. 11.) The Motion to Amend also seeks leave to add certain new claims, but

Plaintiffs don’t need the Court’s approval for that. If they are permitted to file an amended

complaint at all, it is up to them what claims to put in it.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Blake Wilson, says he was retained on October 18, 2012, that he

did not know the case had been removed from state court to this Court, and that he did not

receive mailed notice, because he was in the process of relocating to a new address.

Mr. Wilson’s recent filings, however, undercut this. His motion for substitution of

counsel says he “began representing Plaintiffs on August 30, 2012.” (Docket no. 19 at

- 1 - 12cv2474

Case 3:12-cv-02474-LAB-MDD Document 23 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 3
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

1:22–23.) His “Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant[ ]” (Docket no. 18),

purportedly with a hearing date of April 22, attaches a copy of the state docket printout. That 1

printout shows the only attorney of record Plaintiffs had until removal was Joseph Sclafani. 

Wilson wasn’t added as counsel either on August 30, 2012 or October 18, 2012. Rather, he

simply made an appearance in this Court by filing a notice of change of address (Docket no.

10) on February 15, 2013, which he apparently intended to serve as a kind of notice of

substitution of counsel. The reason Wilson wasn’t receiving mailed notices wasn’t because

his address had changed, but because neither the state court nor this one knew he was

representing Plaintiffs. Until his February 15 filing, Wilson was, as far as the courts were

concerned, a stranger to this case.

The docket printout also shows a notice of removal was duly filed in the state court,

on October 12, 2012. Wilson therefore had notice this case had been removed. It isn’t clear

what additional type of notice Wilson thinks he should have gotten, but the record shows

conclusively that he is responsible for allowing delays in this case.

Two factors weigh in favor of granting leave to amend, however. First, the Court

recognizes the strong policy in favor of decisions on the merits. See, e.g., Eitel v. McCool,

782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9 Cir. 1986) (“Cases should be decided on the merits whenever th

possible.”) That policy is embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), which instructs courts to grant

leave to amend freely, when justice so requires. See id. (noting that policy favoring decisions

on the merits underlies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

Second, although the hearing date on the motion for leave to amend is Monday, April

22, 2013, Defendant has not filed any opposition. Failure to file an opposition when due can

constitute consent to its being granted. See Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). The Court construes

Defendant's non-opposition as consent.

The motion for leave to file an amended complaint is therefore GRANTED. The

amended complaint must not include claims against Defendant Kristy Sukel, who was

Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained the April 22 hearing date for the motion for leave to 1

amend, but on his own initiative erroneously also used the same hearing date for the motion

to substitute counsel. (See Docket no. 17 at 2 n.1.)

- 2 - 12cv2474

Case 3:12-cv-02474-LAB-MDD Document 23 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 3
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

terminated as a Defendant on March 15, 2013. The amended complaint must be filed no

later than Thursday, April 25, 2013.

In view of past delays, Plaintiffs’ counsel is reminded to be prompt. Failure to amend

within the time permitted will result in this action being dismissed without prejudice for failure

to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv2474

Case 3:12-cv-02474-LAB-MDD Document 23 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 3