Guzman

I. Background

22 On June 11, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29). 23 On July 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. 24 (ECF No. 30). No opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given 27 when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme 28 1 || liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should ||consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “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 opposing party by virtue of 7 || allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 8 || 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp.,…