Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05288/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05288-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

PETER AND STEPHANIE NEWSON,

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. DBA 

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., 

BANKERS ALLIANCE INC., JULIE 

WHITESIDE, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-5288 SBA 

ORDER 

Docket 41, 44 

Plaintiffs, Dr. Peter Newsom and Stepanie Newsom (collectively “Plaintiffs”), allege 

that they were defrauded by their lender, mortgage broker and others in connection with the 

refinancing of their home in Woodside, California. On May 19, 2010, the Court granted in part 

and denied in part Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. dba America’s Wholesale 

Lender’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Among other 

things, the Court ruled that the Home Owners Loan Act of 1933 (“HOLA”) preempted 

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and fraud. The Court 

granted leave to amend with respect to certain of the Plaintiffs’ claims. In accordance with the 

Court’s instructions, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on May 26, 2010, which 

Defendants have now moved to dismiss. 

Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 

under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiffs state that they recently learned that Defendant is not a 

Federal Savings and Loan Association covered by HOLA. Though styled a motion for leave to 

file a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs, in fact, are seeking “the opportunity to amend” 

Case 4:09-cv-05288-SBA Document 52 Filed 07/21/10 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 

their pleadings in order to reinstate the claims which the Court found were preempted. 

(Docket 41 at 2.) Defendant has filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. 

At this juncture, the operative pleading on file is Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. 

In the event the Court were to reconsider its prior ruling, Plaintiffs would necessarily have to 

file a Fourth Amended Complaint, which would supersede the Third Amended Complaint and 

render Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss moot. The Court concludes that the more 

appropriate and efficient course of action is for Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend to 

add causes of action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. By no later than July 30, 2010, Plaintiffs shall file a motion for leave to amend. 

Defendant shall file its response by August 11, 2010, and Plaintiffs shall file their reply by 

August 18, 2010. The opening and opposition briefs may not exceed ten pages, and the reply 

shall not exceed five pages. The Court will take the matter under submission on the date the 

reply is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). 

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint is DENIED 

without prejudice. In the event the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, 

Defendant may renotice its motion on the Court’s calendar. In that event, the parties need not 

refile their briefs (Docket 44, 50, 51) in connection with the motion. 

3. This Order terminates Docket 41 and 44. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 20, 2010 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-05288-SBA Document 52 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2