United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [Re: ECF No. 90]
LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Rahila Khan, proceeding pro se, filed this action against defendants ReconTrust Company ("ReconTrust") and Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America") (collectively, "Defendants") for claims based on the circumstances surrounding her mortgage loans and her subsequent default on those loans. After the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the court, in a Case Management and Pretrial Order, ECF No. 72, set September 26, 2014 as the deadline for Ms. Khan to seek leave to amend the complaint or add parties to this action.
On November 3, 2014, upon Ms. Khan's motion, the court ruled that she could file, by November 17, 2014, a Second Amended Complaint adding Select Portfolio to her fraud claim with respect to the Michelle Street Property. (11/3/2014 Order, ECF No. 82.) She did (albeit a little late), and the court and the parties proceeded to have a case management conference on December 18, 2014. (Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 84; 12/18/2014 Minute Order, ECF No. 87.) During that conference, Ms. Khan informed the court that she wished to file a Third Amended Complaint. The court thus set January 5, 2015 as the deadline for her to file a motion to seek leave to do so. (Id. )
On December 30, 2014, Ms. Khan filed her motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. (Motion, ECF No. 90.) Defendants oppose the motion. (Opposition, ECF No. 91.) Aside from containing a single sentence requesting leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, it is completely devoid of any facts, argument, or authority to support her request (even though the form motion she used specifically mentions the need to do this and provides space to do it), and Ms. Khan did not attach her proposed Third Amended Complaint to it (even though the court told her at the case management conference that she would need to do that). ( See generally Motion, ECF No. 90.) This fails to meet the required standard for allowing amendment at this stage of the litigation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Furthermore, although Ms. Khan has been and is proceeding pro se in this litigation, the court has made her aware of her obligations to comply with the applicable pleading and motion requirements, and it has previously referred her to the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program to provide basic legal help. (Notice to Plaintiff Re Pro Bono Project Referral, ECF No. 48.) During the case management conference, the court again referred Ms. Khan to the Legal Help Center for assistance with her motion, but it appears she did not seek it.
In light of the foregoing, the court denies Ms. Khan's motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Her Second Amended Complaint remains the operative one in this case, and Defendants shall respond to it by January 15, 2015, per the ...