Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2024

Lanier v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:23-cv-01396
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Lanier v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Judge Tigar struck Lanier’s untimely third amended complaint while leaving defendants’ dismissal motion pending.

Who this affects

Christine Lanier’s third amended complaint was struck; defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending.

What happened

In Lanier v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Christine Lanier filed a third amended complaint without asking the court for permission. Defendants had already filed a motion to dismiss her second amended complaint.

The court said that, even if Lanier could amend without permission, she had to do so within 21 days after the motion to dismiss was served. She filed the third amended complaint 60 days after that motion, so the court struck it.

Judge Jon S. Tigar did not decide defendants’ motion to dismiss; he left that motion under submission.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lanier v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · No. 4:23-cv-01396
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Jan. 24, 2024

Background

Christine Lanier filed a second amended complaint on October 30, 2023. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on November 13, 2023. On January 12, 2024, Lanier filed a third amended complaint without leave of court, meaning without the court’s permission.

Analysis

The court did not decide whether Lanier had the right to file a second amended complaint without permission. It said that, even if she had that right, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) required her to file the amendment within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever was earlier. Because she filed the third amended complaint 60 days after defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the amendment was not timely.

Ruling

The court struck Lanier’s third amended complaint. Defendants’ motion to dismiss remained under submission. The order did not decide that motion or the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.