Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00097/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00097-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIEM KLDS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-CV-97 WQH

(BGS)

vs. ORDER

LEGAL RECOVERY LAW

OFFICES; ANDREW RUNDQUIST;

and Does 1 through 10,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to File Second

Amended Complaint (“Motion for Leave to File SAC”). (ECF No. 13).

BACKGROUND 

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff Mariem Klds filed a Complaint against 

Defendants Legal Recovery Law Offices, Andrew Rundquist and Does 1-10

(“Defendants”). (ECF No. 1). 

On January 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint against

Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)

(15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.) and the California Rosenthal FDCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §§

1788-1788.32). (ECF No. 6). 

On April 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File SAC. (ECF No.

13). Plaintiff requests leave to amend in order “to bring all the known claims and

- 1 - 13cv97 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:13-cv-00097-WQH-BGS Document 19 Filed 05/22/13 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

parties into this action so that the litigation can proceed expeditiously to resolve all the

issues between the part[ies].” Id. at 4. On April 30, 2013, Defendants filed an

opposition, in which they contend that leave should be denied because Plaintiff did not

file a proposed second amended complaint or identify the claims and/or parties she

seeks to add. (ECF No. 18). 

DISCUSSION

 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend

“be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). While “[t]his policy

is to be applied with extreme liberality,” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316

F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 provides that any 

motion requesting a court order “must ... state with particularity the grounds for seeking

the order....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B). 

Plaintiff did not attach a proposed second amended complaint to her motion, and

there is no federal or local rule of civil procedure requiring that she do so. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 15.1; see also Stone v. Advance Am., 08-CV-1549-

WQH(WMC), 2009 WL 2242350, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2009). However, Plaintiff

has not identified any party, claim or allegation that she seeks to add to her complaint. 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to “state with particularity the ground for

seeking” leave to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff’s request for leave to

amend is denied.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File SAC (ECF No. 13)

is DENIED with leave to refile no later than fifteen (15) days from the date of this

Order. 

DATED: May 22, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv97 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:13-cv-00097-WQH-BGS Document 19 Filed 05/22/13 Page 2 of 2