From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Megediuk v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 10, 2010
NO. CIV. S-10-2777 LKK/JFM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2010)

Opinion

NO. CIV. S-10-2777 LKK/JFM.

November 10, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff in this case brings numerous claims against defendants arising out of his home mortgage. On October 13, 2010, defendants Wachovia Mortgage and Golden West Savings Association Service Co. ("Golden West") removed the instant action to federal court on the grounds that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case because it raises a federal question and because the parties are diverse. (ECF No. 1). On October 20, 2010, these same defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them and a motion to strike portions of the complaint. (ECF Nos. 4, 5). These motions are set to be heard on November 22, 2010.

Instead of filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motions, plaintiff filed a motion to file an amended complaint on November 5, 2010. (ECF No. 8) While he failed to attach a proposed amended complaint, as required by E.D. Cal. Local Rule 137(c), he nonetheless specifically identified the changes he intends to make in the amended complaint. In particular, he requests leave to amend his complaint to remove all allegations concerning violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act. On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case to state court, which is set to be heard on December 6, 2010. In this motion, plaintiff argues that the parties are not completely diverse because both he and defendant Golden West are citizens of California.

Plaintiff cannot amend as a matter of course because he filed his motion to amend more than twenty-one days after serving his complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). Nonetheless, courts "should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint by 9:00 a.m. on Friday November 12, 2010.
(2) Defendants' motions to dismiss and to strike (ECF Nos. 4, 5) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. The hearing on these motions, set for November 22, 2010, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 10, 2010.


Summaries of

Megediuk v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 10, 2010
NO. CIV. S-10-2777 LKK/JFM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2010)
Case details for

Megediuk v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Case Details

Full title:IVAN MEGEDIUK, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Nov 10, 2010

Citations

NO. CIV. S-10-2777 LKK/JFM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2010)