Ayeni-Aarons v. Best Buy Credit Services/CBNA et al

Filing 88

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/7/2023; GRANTING 45 Motion to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiff shall file the Third Amended Complaint within 3 days. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OSBERT AYENI-AARONS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BEST BUY CREDIT CARD SERVICES
CBNA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

No. 2:18-cv-01625-MCE-KJN

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Osbert Ayeni-Aarons’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to

18

File a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). ECF No. 45. Defendant Trans Union, LLC,

19

filed a statement of non-opposition, ECF No. 47, whereas Defendant Best Buy Co.

20

(“Best Buy”) filed an opposition to the Motion.1 ECF No. 48. For the following reasons,

21

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.2

22
23

Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),3
which provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so

24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant Experian did not file an opposition or any response to the present Motion. Former
Defendant Citibank, N.A., filed an opposition, ECF No. 50, but it has since been dismissed from the case.
See ECF No. 85.
2 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g).
3

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

1

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Court considers five factors in determining

2

whether to permit an amendment to the complaint under Rule 15(a): (1) whether the

3

amendment was filed with undue delay; (2) whether the movant has requested the

4

amendment in bad faith or as a dilatory tactic; (3) whether the movant was allowed to

5

make previous amendments which failed to correct deficiencies of the complaint;

6

(4) whether the amendment will unduly prejudice the opposing party; and (5) whether the

7

amendment would be futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Whether

8

amendment will unduly prejudice the opposing party is the most important factor in a

9

court’s analysis under Rule 15(a). Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d

10

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). If the movant articulates a reason why amendment is

11

needed, the “burden then shifts to the opposing party to persuade the court that ‘justice’

12

requires denial.” Stoddart v. Express Servs., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01054-KJM-CKD, 2015

13

WL 1812833, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015).

14

The operative Second Amended Complaint is five pages and lists three causes of

15

action under (1) the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1982; (2) the Equal Credit

16

Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 et seq.; and (3) the Fair Credit Reporting Act, id. §§

17

1681 et seq. See ECF No. 23. In contrast, the proposed TAC is 15 pages and, in

18

addition to the three aforementioned claims, asserts four new causes of action under

19

(1) the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) id. § 1985(c);4 (3) the California

20

Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code §§ 1785.1 et seq.; and

21

(4) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.

22

(“RICO”). See ECF No. 45-1.

23

In his Motion, Plaintiff does not provide any explanation as to why these

24

amendments are needed, but instead asserts that the Court should grant leave to

25

amend in light of the liberal policy favoring amendment. See ECF No. 45-2. With that

26

said, the allegations and causes of action set forth in the proposed TAC are still based

27
28

4 There is no subsection (c) in the statute, but it is likely that Plaintiff was referring to subsection
(3). See 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

2

1

on the same laptop transaction underlying previous iterations of the Complaint. As a

2

result, the Court does not find that Plaintiff is acting in bad faith or that these new

3

additions will unduly prejudice Defendants.

4

Best Buy primarily argues that the additional causes of action are futile because

5

they are inadequately pleaded. See ECF No. 48, at 5–7 (arguing that “there are

6

absolutely no allegations of any complicity with the state,” Best Buy is not a “consumer

7

credit reporting agency,” and that Plaintiff fails to plead his RICO claim with particularity).

8

For purposes of this Motion, the Court declines to consider such arguments. Although

9

Best Buy’s arguments concerning the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s proposed causes of action

10

may have merit, they should be advanced in a fully briefed motion to dismiss under Rule

11

12. See Anthony v. Harmon, No. 2:09-cv-02272-MCE-KJM, 2010 WL 4720889, at *2

12

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2010) (explaining that “courts generally defer consideration of

13

challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is

14

granted and the amended pleading is filed.”) (citation omitted); Lillis v. Apria Healthcare,

15

No. 12-cv-52, 2012 WL 4760908, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012) (same).

16

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to File TAC, ECF No. 45, is

17

GRANTED. Not later than three (3) days following the date this Order is electronically

18

filed, Plaintiff shall refile his TAC on the docket. The Clerk of Court is also directed to

19

issue this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 7, 2023

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3