Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04465/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04465-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

MARILYN POSTLEWAITE; PAMELA 

POSTLEWAITE, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; NDEX WEST, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 12-CV-4465 YGR

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE AMENDED ANSWER

Now before the Court is the motion of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by 

merger with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB and World 

Savings Bank, FSB ("Wells"), to file an amended answer to Plaintiff's complaint. (Dkt. No. 61 

("Motion").) Wells's Motion seeks leave to add two affirmative defenses omitted from its initial 

answer. Wells filed its Motion on December 13, 2013. Accordingly, under this Court's Civil Local 

Rule 7-3(a), the deadline for Plaintiffs to oppose the Motion was December 27, 2013. To date, 

Plaintiffs have filed no opposition.1

The Motion, being unopposed, and good cause appearing, is GRANTED. Sonoma Cnty. 

Ass'n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (leave to amend 

 

1

 Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(b), if Plaintiffs opted not to oppose the Motion, they were required to 

file with the Court a statement of non-opposition "within the time for filing and serving any 

opposition." Plaintiffs are on notice that further failures to practice before this Court in accordance 

with the applicable Local Rules may provide grounds for sanctions. Civ. L.R. 1-4; 11-4(a)(2). 

Case 4:12-cv-04465-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/06/14 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 

is presumptively granted absent either a showing of prejudice or a strong showing of delay, bad 

faith, futility of amendment, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies through amendment); Eminence 

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice is the preeminent, 

"touchstone" factor); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987) ("The 

party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice."). 

The Court VACATES the motion hearing set for January 21, 2014. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Wells's 

motion to appear telephonically at that hearing (Dkt. No. 64) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 61 and 64. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 6, 2014 _______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cv-04465-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2