FAY v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS

Full title: MICKEY L. FAY, JR., Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma

Date published: Sep 13, 2011

CASE NO. C11-5458BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 13, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. C11-5458BHS.

September 13, 2011

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

BENJAMIN SETTLE, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's ("Fay") motion to amend complaint (Dkt. 24). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.

I. DISCUSSION

On June 16, 2011, the Court denied Fay's motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") and set a briefing schedule on the motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 4. On June 22, 2011, the Court denied Fay's second motion for TRO as duplicative to the first TRO motion, which the Court had already denied. Dkt. 14 (treating the motion as one for reconsideration).

The parties fully briefed the motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkts. 19 (opposition), 24 (reply). However, on July 26, 2011, Fay moved the Court to amend the Complaint in this case. Dkt 24. The Court renoted the motion for preliminary injunction and to amend the complaint for consideration on its calendar for August 12, 2011. Defendants did not oppose Fay's motion to amend.

Fay contends that good cause for amendment "arises as to new information and recent developments in this matter." Dkt. 24 at 1. While the proposed Amended Complaint is on file, Fay failed to highlight for the Court the extent of the "new information and recent developments" within the motion to amend. See Dkt. 24; see also Dkt. 24, Ex. A (proposed Amended Complaint).

However, because Fay is proceeding pro se and because Defendants did not oppose the motion, the Court will provide Fay with some latitude and permit amendment of the Complaint as proposed. See id.

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Fay's motion to amend the complaint (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED;

2. Fay SHALL file the Amended Complaint on or before Monday, September 19, 2011;

3. Defendants MAY AMEND their opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction on or before Wednesday, September 21;

4. Fay MAY FILE any supplementary reply brief on or before Friday, September 23; and

5. The Court RENOTES the motion for preliminary injunction to be considered on Friday, September 23, 2011.