Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00494/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00494-0/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

MELISSA STACEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv494-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO ANSWER; 

ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED

COMPLAINT AS FILED; AND

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.

LEGAL RECOVERY LAW OFFICES,

INC., et al.

Defendants.

On April 17, 2013, the parties jointly moved to extend the time by which Defendants

must answer or otherwise respond. Then on April 26 they filed a motion to dismiss, which,

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4), extends the time to respond. The Court will therefore treat the

joint motion as a motion to permit Defendants to file their motion to dismiss after the usual

deadline. So construed, the joint motion is GRANTED. Defendants need not answer or

otherwise respond until the time prescribed by Rule 12(a)(4).

After the motion to dismiss was filed, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Docket

no. 6.) The amended complaint was untimely, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). But in view

of the Federal Rules’ admonition that the Court should freely give leave to amend when

justice so requires, see Rule 15(a)(2), the amended complaint is ACCEPTED AS FILED.

/ / /

- 1 - 13cv494

Case 3:13-cv-00494-LAB-NLS Document 9 Filed 06/06/13 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

In spite of having filed the amended complaint, Plaintiff Melissa Stacey filed an

opposition to the motion to dismiss claiming the original complaint was acceptable, but in the

alternative requesting leave to amend. Apparently this was Stacey’s fall-back position, in

case the late-filed amended complaint was not accepted.

Because the amended complaint is being accepted as filed, the motion to dismiss is

DENIED AS MOOT and the hearing currently on calendar for Monday, June 10, 2013 at

11:30 a.m. is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 5, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv494

Case 3:13-cv-00494-LAB-NLS Document 9 Filed 06/06/13 Page 2 of 2