Ronald Au v. the Funding Group, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Ronald G.S. Au, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dis missing his action alleging federal and state law violations in connection with the assignment of a mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for leave to amend, Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391 , 395 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Au’s motions for leave to amend because Au’s first proposed amended complaint did not allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable claims for relief, and Au’s second proposed amended complaint violated the court’s order restricting him from adding new theories of liability against existing defendants. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir.2011) (district court does not abuse its discretion where proposed amendments violate court’s order limiting scope of complaint); Hinton, 5 F.3d at 397 (a court may refuse to grant leave to amend when, even if amendments were allowed, the complaint would be subject to dismissal); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937…