Hani Toma, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HANI TOMA, et al., Case No.: 26-cv-2805-RSH-MSB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 13 v. EXTENSION OF TIME

14 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A, et al., [ECF No. 5] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Before the Court is the Parties’ “Joint Stipulation to Permit Plaintiffs to File a First 19 Amended Complaint and Extend Defendant’s Time to Respond to the First Amended 20 Complaint.” ECF No. 5. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.2(b), the Court construes the 21 stipulation as a joint motion. Civil L.R. 7.2(b) (“Any stipulation for which court approval 22 is sought must first be filed as a ‘joint motion.’”). 23 Under Rule 15(a)(2), “[a] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing 24 party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Because Defendant has consented to 25 Plaintiffs’ filing of a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs need not obtain leave of Court. 26 See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015); Fern v. United 27 States, 213 F.2d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 1954) (“Once the adverse party has consented to the 28 amendment of a pleading, the court has no control over the matter under Rule 15(a).”). 1 The Parties’ request to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to the First Amended 2 ||Complaint is GRANTED. ECF No. 5 at 3. Defendant shall respond to the First Amended 3 ||Complaint on or before June 22, 2026. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: May 27, 2026 ‘

7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28