United States District Court, C.D. California
January 21, 2015
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present.
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present.
Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, J.
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Proceedings: (In Chambers)
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
On October 27, 2014, plaintiff Christine Umholtz filed this action in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Ventura, naming as defendants Bank of America, N.A. (" Bank of America"); Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; ReconTrust Company, N.A. (" ReconTrust"); and Does 1 through 20. Dkt. No. 1. On December 1, 2014, Bank of America and ReconTrust removed the action to federal court. Id. On December 8, 2014, Bank of America and ReconTrust filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 10.
On January 16, 2015, plaintiff filed a " Notice of Intent to File First Amended Complaint." Dkt. No. 18. This document conveyed plaintiff's intend to file a First Amended Complaint (" FAC") on or before January 21, 2015. Id. Plaintiff asserts that she " is entitled to file a First Amended Complaint because [she] has not previously amended the Complaint and Defendant filed a motion under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(b)." Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B)). On January 21, 2015, plaintiff filed her FAC. Dkt. No. 19.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides in relevant part:
Amending as a Matter of Course.
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.
In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As noted above, the pending motion to dismiss was filed on December 8, 2014. The motion was served on plaintiff on December 10, 2014. See Dkt. No. 14 (Proof of Service). Plaintiff did not file her FAC until January 21, 2015-42 days after service of the Rule 12(b) motion. Therefore, plaintiff is not, as she asserts, entitled to file the FAC as a matter of right.
Nevertheless, the Federal Rules counsel that a district court " should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The Court finds that the most efficient and just course is to deem the FAC filed with the Court's leave. Accordingly, the Court deems the FAC to be timely filed. In light of the filing of the FAC, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the pending motion to dismiss, and VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for January 26, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.