McDow
Kennedy McDow, et al. v. Betty Harris, et al.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
I. INTRODUCTION
16 17 On February 16, 2024, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) filed a motion to 18 dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) alleging that Plaintiffs Kennedy McDow (“McDow”) 19 and the Estate of Lily McDow (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have failed to state a claim. (Doc. 91.) 20 The Court found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 21 230(g) on February 22, 2024, and vacated the hearing. (Doc. 92.) 22 McDow filed a response to the motion on October 29, 2024 (Doc. 98), and a second response 23 on July 21, 2025 (Doc. 101). BANA replied to the second response on July 30, 2025.1 (Doc. 102.) 24 On August 25, 2025, the motion was referred to the undersigned for findings and recommendations 25
26 1 In its reply brief, BANA notes that McDow’s July 21, 2025 response was filed “nearly a year and a half” late and urges the Court to disregard the untimely filing. (See Doc. 102 at 2.) But McDow filed an initial response to the motion nine 27 months prior, on October 29, 2024, to which BANA did not reply, much less object. In the absence of any apparent prejudice, which BANA has not shown, the…