The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
#20/21/22/25/33 Nov. 7 hrg vacated
Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING
Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint, DENYING Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, DENYING Plaintiff's requests for notice of lis pendens, and DENYING AS MOOT Defendant's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's related filings
Among the numerous motions pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint currently scheduled for hearing on November 7, 2011. Having considered the moving papers filed in support of and in opposition to that motion, the Court hereby advances the hearing, finds all matters appropriate for decision without oral argument, and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. As discussed below, the Court also DENIES Plaintiff's ex parte application, DENIES Plaintiff's numerous requests for notice of lis pendens, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's related filings.
Pro se Plaintiff Jonathan E. Samuels ("Plaintiff") brings the present action against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA ("Wells Fargo") in connection with his allegedly wrongful foreclosure. In general, Plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that Wells Fargo acted without authorization in conducting the foreclosure proceedings. On August 10, 2011, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint and calendared the motion for hearing on September 26, 2011. See Dkt #20. Instead of opposing the motion, Plaintiff mistakenly filed a "motion in opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss" and scheduled the motion for hearing on October 31, 2011. On the day scheduled for a hearing on Defendant's motion, Plaintiff filed the present motion for leave to amend his complaint. See Dkt #25. Plaintiff also filed a "first amended motion" to the "motion in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss," and an actual (albeit belated) opposition to Defendant's motion. See Dkt #27, 28. The Court took Defendant's motion to dismiss under submission. See Dkt #24. Finally, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction on September 30, 2011, along with multiple requests for notice of lis pendens. See Dkt # 33 (ex parte application), 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 38.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to ...