Potter
Potter v. Chex Systems, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Burns, J.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
On September 18, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Mark Potter’s complaint without prejudice. Because it was not clear whether Potter could successfully amend, the order (the “Dismissal Order”) directed Potter to file an ex parte motion accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint (the “SAC”), showing how the SAC could cure defects identified in the order. Potter now moves for leave to amend by attaching a proposed SAC, and also adds a new claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
*1278 I. Legal Standards
After a complaint is dismissed, leave to amend is ordinarily granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. But leave to amend need not be granted if the amended complaint would not withstand a motion to dismiss. See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir.1998). While “there is a policy that favors allowing parties to amend their pleadings ... a district court may properly deny such a motion if it would be futile to do so.” Partington v. Bugliosi 56 F.3d 1147, 1162 (9th Cir.1995).
When determining whether a complaint should be dismissed, the Court accepts as true all…