Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00904/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00904-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

GEORGE LARA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv904-LAB (POR)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

On June 5, 2012 the Court rejected a first amended complaint that Lara attempted

to file in this case. It did so on the basis that the complaint was untimely under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 15, which allows for a complaint to be amended once as a matter of course within “21

days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); see also

Wehlage v. EmpRes Healthcare Inc., 821 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Lara, in

the Court’s judgment, was too late.

With respect to certain Defendants, that is true. Aurora Loan Services and MERS

filed a motion to dismiss on April 20, 2012, and McCarthy & Holthus filed a motion to dismiss

on April 23, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 8.) Lara didn’t attempt to file his first amended complaint,

however, until May 30, 2012, more than 21 days after these motions to dismiss were filed. 

Defendant Ruzicka & Wallace, however, didn’t file a motion to dismiss until May 9, 2012, and

Lara’s amended complaint was filed 21 days after that date. In other words, Lara’s amended

complaint was ostensibly untimely with respect to some Defendants but timely with respect

to another Defendant. See Villery v. District of Columbia, Case No. 10-630, 2011 WL

- 1 - 10cv0470

Case 3:12-cv-00904-GPC-BLM Document 28 Filed 06/28/12 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

5108511 at *2 (D. D.C. Oct. 27, 2011) (“In cases involving multiple defendants, a plaintiff

may file an amended complaint as of right concerning only those defendants who, at the

time the plaintiff files his amendment . . . have filed an answer or a Rule 12(b) . . . motion,

but who have made that filing exactly or fewer than 21 days before the plaintiff files his

amendment.”).

The Court therefore orders the following. First, within one week of the date this Order

is received, Lara must file an amended complaint against Ruzicka & Wallace only. Second,,

the Court will give Lara two weeks from the date this Order is entered to file an opposition

brief that succinctly addresses the arguments raised by Aurora Loan Services, MERS, and

McCarthy & Holthus in their motions to dismiss. The Court would not grant him leave to

amend his complaint with respect to these Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This

is a benefit to Lara; he has failed to file an opposition brief to date, but this may be partially

due to his and the Court’s confusion regarding the status of his first amended complaint. 

The failure to file an opposition brief, per the Court’s Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), will be construed

as consent to the motions being granted. Third, any parties with objections to this Order

must file them by no later than Wednesday, July 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 10cv0470

Case 3:12-cv-00904-GPC-BLM Document 28 Filed 06/28/12 Page 2 of 2