Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05919/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05919-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COURTNEY SILVERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOVE INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05919-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING MAY 

23, 2019 HEARING ON MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND; DEEMING 

PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

COMPLAINT TO BE MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

[Re: ECF 51]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Courtney Silverman’s motion for leave to file a first amended 

complaint. Mot., ECF 51. On December 10, 2018, Defendant Move Inc. (“Move”) filed a motion 

to compel arbitration and to dismiss and Defendant National Association of Realtors (“NAR”)

filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(2) and 12(6). ECF 25, 27. Under Rule 15(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff’s 

deadline to amend her Complaint as a matter of right was December 31, 2018. That deadline 

came and went without amendment. On January 28, 2019, 49 days after Defendants filed their 

responsive pleadings, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint without receiving Defendants’ or 

the Court’s consent as required by Rule 15(a)(2). Because Plaintiff’s FAC was untimely, the 

Court struck it on Defendants’ motion on March 6, 2019. On March 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed the 

instant motion for leave to amend. ECF 51. Though Plaintiff opposed Move’s motion to dismiss, 

ECF 53, Plaintiff did not oppose NAR’s motion to dismiss, ECF 25.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court deadlines has created a morass regarding the 

pending motions. If the Court grants the motion for leave to amend after a hearing on May 23, 

Case 5:18-cv-05919-BLF Document 55 Filed 04/02/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants risk having briefed and argued the motions to dismiss for naught. At the same time, 

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose NAR’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction makes it 

difficult to rule on the futility of the proposed amended complaint. To remedy this procedural 

mire, the Court VACATES the May 23, 2019 hearing on the motion for leave to amend (the 

hearings on the motions to dismiss remain); GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend under 

Rule 15; and DEEMS Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss the Complaint (ECF 25, 37) to be 

motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (located at ECF 51-2). Move’s reply in support 

of its motion to dismiss is now due on or before April 10, 2019. In its 15-page reply, Move may

address whether and how its arguments apply to the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff may file 

on or before April 17, 2019 a 2-page sur-reply addressing only the issue of how, if at all, its First 

Amended Complaint cures any identified issues in Move’s motion to compel arbitration. 

Additionally, Defendant NAR may file on or before April 10, 2019, a 3-page supplemental brief 

in support of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction addressing whether and how 

the First Amended Complaint fails to cure the deficiencies identified in NAR’s motion to dismiss. 

Because Plaintiff failed to oppose NAR’s motion, she will not have an opportunity to respond. 

Plaintiff must file her First Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry on or before April 5, 

2019.

The Court makes clear that in granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, it does not 

seek to reward Plaintiff for her missteps here. In fact, the Court believes this procedure is the 

fairest procedure for Defendants, as it allows the Court to apply Defendants’ arguments to 

Plaintiff’s preferred pleading, and thus to avoid the potential of having to simply allow the same 

exact amendment to occur in response to the motions to dismiss, should the Court grant them 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05919-BLF Document 55 Filed 04/02/19 Page 2 of 2