Case Information
*1 Case 2:10-cv-00105-KJM-CKD Document 45 Filed 11/23/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----
DANIEL MAJOR EDSTROM, and TERI ANNE EDSTROM,
CIV. NO. S-10-105 FCD/KJM Plaintiffs,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NDEX WEST, LLC, AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, and DOES 1-10,000,
Defendants.
----oo0oo----
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs Daniel and Teri Edstrom’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) adding additional defendants. (Docket #27.) [1] *2 Case 2:10-cv-00105-KJM-CKD Document 45 Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 2 Finding good cause to permit the amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), and considering that no opposition was filed to the motion, the court HEREBY GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion. [2] Plaintiff shall file and serve an SAC within 20 days of the date of this Order; the SAC shall comply with both the instant order and the court’s previous order of October 18, 2010 (Docket #40), dismissing defendants ACS and MERS. Defendants, including NDEX, [3] shall have 30 days after service of the SAC to file their response thereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 23, 2010
FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[1] Plaintiffs also sought leave to file a SAC to assert 25 facts establishing a basis for application of equitable tolling with regard to their claims asserted against defendants America’s Servicing Company (“ASC”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”). The court previously ruled on plaintiffs’ motion on that issue as it related to ASC and MERS’ previously pending motion to dismiss. (Docket #40.) The court granted ASC and MERS’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend, leaving defendant NDEX, West, LLC (“NDEX”) as the sole remaining 26 27 28 (continued...)
[1] (...continued) 22 defendant. Thus, now pending is only whether plaintiffs should be permitted leave to amend to name additional defendants. 23
[2] Because oral argument will not be of material 24 assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 25
[3] On October 6, 2010, NDEX filed an answer to plaintiff’s 26 proposed SAC, filed September 30, 2010 (Docket #33). However, the court had not yet granted plaintiffs leave to file a SAC; as such, the court construes NDEX’s answer (Docket #38) as a response to plaintiff’s first amended complaint. NDEX may respond to plaintiffs’ SAC in accordance with this order. 27 28 2