MEMORANDUM

Steven Millett appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Consumerinfo.com (collectively, “Experian”), the Defendants in the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The district court did not err by withdrawing its order granting Millet’s motion to amend because the district court issued its order before it received and reviewed Experian’s opposition to the motion. See City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885-86 (9th Cir.2001). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Millett’s motion to amend because the motion was based on consumer survey evidence that the district court had previously rejected. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Experian on Millett’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) claims. Experian’s advertisements were primarily aimed at credit report monitoring; the identity-theft protection benefit advertised by Credit Manager is clearly tied to daily credit report monitoring. Based on the information properly before it, the district court did not err in concluding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled about the level of identify-theft protection offered by Credit Manager. See Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663 , 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 36, 48 (2006). Finally, the Experian trademark at the top of the advertisements truthfully reflects Consumerinfo.com’s status as a subsidiary of Experian North America. Moreover, Credit Manager must operate in conjunction with Experian because Experian provides the credit reporting services that Credit Manager utilizes. Accordingly, a reasonable consumer would not be misled about the source of the services offered by Credit Manager. See Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir.2008).

We have considered and reject all other arguments raised on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.