Lanier v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 24, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-01396
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTINE LANIER, Case No. 23-cv-01396-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING THIRD AMENDED 9 v. COMPLAINT

10 SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Re: ECF No. 40 et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Christine Lanier filed a second amended complaint on October 30, 2023. ECF 14 No. 31. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on November 13, 2023. ECF No. 32. 15 The motion to dismiss is now ripe, and was taken under submission on January 17, 2024. ECF 16 No. 41. 17 On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint without leave of court. 18 Perhaps Plaintiff could have filed an amended complaint as of right notwithstanding her prior 19 amended pleadings, see Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 505 F. Supp. 2d 907, 913 (D. Kan. 20 2007) (plaintiffs could file second amended complaint as of right, after seeking and receiving 21 court permission to file first amended complaint), but the Court need not decide that question. 22 Even if Plaintiff did have that right, she was required to exercise it within “21 days after service of 23 a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever 24 is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Because she filed her third amended complaint 60 days 25 after Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the amendment was not timely. Accordingly, the 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Court strikes her third amended complaint. 2 Defendants’ motion to dismiss remains under submission. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. ® 4 Dated: January 24, 2024 es JON S. TIGAR 6 nited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28