Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lance Snead v. Aurora Loan Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 24, 2012

LANCE SNEAD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff, Lance Snead, is proceeding in this action pro se. The case was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On November 2, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Solano County Superior Court. Defendants removed the matter to this court by notice of removal filed on February 3, 2012. On February 10, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. On April 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint.

Plaintiff is informed that parties are not permitted to amend their pleadings at will. In this regard, Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier." Here, plaintiff did not file his amended complaint within 21 days of the date defendants were served with the original complaint or within 21 days of the date defendants served their motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of course.

Rule 15(a)(2) provides that "[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Here, plaintiff has not obtained the defendants' written consent. Nor has plaintiff moved the court for leave to amend. Moreover, the court declines to consider further amendments to plaintiff's pleading until after considering defendants' motion to dismiss. At that time the court will evaluate defendants' motion and, if appropriate, consider whether plaintiff should be granted leave to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court will direct the Clerk to strike plaintiff's proposed amended complaint.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall strike the proposed amended complaint filed by plaintiff April 18, 2012 (Doc. No. 10).

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\snead0293.strike.ord

20120424

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.