Dennis Hellervik v. 3m Company

MEMORANDUM

Dennis and Tho Hellervik appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for asbestos-related injuries and from its denial of leave to amend their complaint. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir.2012), we reverse the district court’s denial of leave to amend. We need not decide whether the complaint was properly dismissed.

“Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir.1996)).

Here, the only reason the district court gave for denying leave to amend was that the Hellerviks “have already had two chances to state sufficient factual allegations to support their claims.” This is no reason not to permit amendment of a complaint. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (identifying “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the…