Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Underdue v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

September 27, 2019

FELICIA A. UNDERDUE, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant.

          ORDER

          ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, (Doc. No. 25), and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 8).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Felicia A. Underdue (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) with the filing of a Complaint on September 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On September 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 3.)

         On December 27, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 8.) On May 3, 2017, the Court issued a Roseboro Order directing Plaintiff to file a response, if any, to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 18.)

         On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time requesting additional time to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 20.) On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. No. 25.)

         On July 13, 2017, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file a response, if any, to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on or before July 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 26.) The Court further directed Plaintiff to file a proposed amended complaint in connection with her Motion to Amend Complaint on or before July 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 26.)

         On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff timely filed a Proposed Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 27.) On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 28), contains additional allegations and causes of action not included in Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 27).

         On August 22, 2017, Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint asserting that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied based on futility. (Doc. No. 30.)

         On September 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Final Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 33.)

         On November 9, 2017, the Court issued an Order, (Doc. No. 35), directing Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 28), and Final Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 33), as untimely. Plaintiff timely filed her response to the Order on November 13, 2017. (Doc. No. 36.) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss are now ripe for resolution.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. The Court strikes Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 28), and Final Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 33), as untimely.

         After Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend Complaint, (Doc. No. 25), the Court issued an Order, (Doc. No. 26), directing Plaintiff to file a proposed amended complaint on or before July 28, 2017. Plaintiff timely filed a Proposed Amended Complaint on July 27, 2017. (Doc. No. 27.) The Court thus strikes as untimely Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed on August 8, 2017, (Doc. No. 28), and Final Amended Complaint filed on September 27, 2017, (Doc. No. 33). Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.