Circle Click Media LLC v. Regus Management Group LLC et al
Filing
166
ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying #130 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and for Reconsideration of a Prior Order; denying #155 Motion to file Surreply (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, et al.,
9
Plaintiffs,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
11
12
REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, et
al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-04000 SC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND FOR
RECONSIDERATION
16
17
I.
INTRODUCTION
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Circle Click Media
18
19
LLC ("Circle Click") and CTNY Insurance Group LLC's ("CTNY")
20
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") motion for leave to file a third
21
amended complaint ("3AC") and for reconsideration of a prior order.
22
ECF No. 130 ("Mot.").
23
("Opp'n"), 152 ("Reply"), 1 and appropriate for resolution without
24
oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
25
forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
26
///
The Motion is fully briefed.
ECF Nos. 139
For the reasons set
27
1
28
Also pending before the Court is Defendants' administrative
motion to file a surreply brief. ECF No. 155. The motion is
DENIED as moot.
1
II.
BACKGROUND
2
A.
Factual Background
3
As the Court has previously ruled on four motions to dismiss
4
in this matter, all parties are familiar with the facts.
5
Nos. 59 ("Jan. 2013 Order"), 77 ("Apr. 2013 Order"), 90 ("Aug. 2013
6
Order"), 117 ("Dec. 2013 Order").
7
business of renting short-term commercial office space throughout
8
California and New York.
9
Plaintiffs entered identical Office Service Agreements with
To review, Defendants are in the
Apr. 2013 Order at 2.
United States District Court
10
For the Northern District of California
See ECF
Defendant Regus Management Group LLP ("RMG").
11
In 2011,
Aug. 2013 Order at
2-3.
The Office Service Agreement is one page and merely sets forth
12
13
the location of the office space, the monthly office fee, the term
14
of the agreement, and the parties to it.
15
Office Service Agreement, Plaintiffs acknowledged that they had
16
"read and understood" another document called the "Terms and
17
Conditions."
18
only one page, but it is printed in five-point font, making it
19
exceedingly difficult to read. 2
20
reference another document, the "House Rules," which discloses a
21
number of fees, including a mandatory, "Kitchen Amenities /
22
Beverage Fee"; a "[s]tandard services" fee, including a fee "billed
23
upon service activation for applicable telecom and internet
Apr. 22 Order at 3.
Id. at 3.
In signing the
The Terms and Conditions is also
Id.
The Terms and Conditions
24
2
25
26
27
28
The Court granted Defendants' administrative motion to lodge with
the Court originals of certain documents, including the Terms and
Conditions. ECF No. 46. The purported original of the Terms and
Conditions is more legible than versions previously filed with the
Court. Plaintiffs dispute that the documents Defendants lodged
with the Court are actually originals. ECF No. 147. This dispute
has no bearing on the disposition of the instant motion for leave
to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to
rule on what is and is not an original document at this time.
2
1
services"; an "Office Set Up Fee"; and a "Business Continuity Fee."
2
Id.
3
Price Guide, which lists the prices for a variety of services.
4
The House Rules reference yet another document, the Service
Id.
The gravamen of Plaintiffs' case is that they were assessed
5
for charges that were not disclosed in the one-page Office
6
Agreement.
7
Office Service Agreement is $2,461, but Circle Click allegedly
8
received monthly invoices ranging from $2,559.67 to $6,653.79.
9
Aug. 2013 Order at 3.
For example, the monthly fee listed in Circle Click's
Plaintiffs allege that Circle Click was
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
assessed additional charges for kitchen amenities (regardless of
11
whether these amenities were used), telephone lines, telecom,
12
handsets, office restoration, and business continuity services,
13
among other things.
14
and Conditions disclosed that additional charges would be assessed,
15
and that the House Rules and the Service Price Guide disclosed what
16
those charges would be.
17
Conditions, House Rules, and Service Price Guide are incorporated
18
by reference into the Office Agreement.
Id. at 3-4.
Defendants contend that the Terms
Defendants also contend that the Terms and
19
B.
Procedural History
20
Circle Click filed this putative class action in California
21
state court on May 8, 2012.
22
federal court in July 2012 and subsequently filed a motion to
23
dismiss.
24
complaint, mooting the motion.
25
ECF Nos. 1, 7.
ECF No. 1.
RMG removed the action to
Plaintiffs then filed a first amended
ECF No. 24 ("1AC").
The 1AC added two new named plaintiffs: Metro Talent, LLC
26
("Metro Talent") and CTNY.
It asserted claims for violation of the
27
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
28
seq.; the False Advertising Law ("FAL"), id. § 17500;
3
1
concealment/suppression and intentional misrepresentation (i.e.,
2
fraud); negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and
3
violation of New York State General Business Law ("GBL") sections
4
349 and 359.
5
the Court granted in part and denied in part.
6
28.
7
misrepresentation claims on the ground that the additional charges
8
targeted by Plaintiffs were disclosed in the relevant agreements.
9
The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to "specifically allege
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 1AC, which
Jan. 2013 Order at
The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' fraud and negligent
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
what was not disclosed in the agreements they signed with
11
Defendants and/or what Defendants misrepresented to them about
12
their monthly fees and why it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to rely
13
on those misrepresentations despite the language of the
14
agreements."
15
and FAL claims with leave to amend.
16
Id. at 22.
The Court also dismissed Plaintiffs' UCL
Id. at 28.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint.
ECF
17
No. 65 ("2AC").
Like the 1AC, the 2AC asserted claims for
18
violations of the UCL and FAL, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
19
and unjust enrichment, though it asserted new predicate violations
20
of the UCL.
21
Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18
22
U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.
23
ECF No. 69, which the Court granted in part and denied in part,
24
Apr. 2013 Order.
25
prejudice.
26
theory that Defendants had exclusive knowledge of the fees that
27
would be assessed, but judicially noticeable documents showed that
28
Plaintiffs had constructive notice of these fees.
It also asserted new claims for violations of the
Defendants filed another motion to dismiss,
The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' fraud claim with
The Court reasoned that the claim was predicated on the
4
Id. at 9.
The
1
Court also dismissed Plaintiffs' RICO claims with prejudice, but
2
left Plaintiffs' UCL and FAL claims largely undisturbed.
3
Following the April 2013 Order, Defendants filed an answer
4
asserting a number of counterclaims.
5
2013, after the Court resolved two rounds of motions to dismiss the
6
counterclaims, the parties finally moved beyond the pleading stage.
7
See Aug. 2013 Order, ECF No. 101 ("Amended Countercl."), Dec. 2013
8
Order.
9
ECF No. 78.
In December
On November 1, 2013, Metro Talent and Defendants stipulated to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
dismiss with prejudice the claims and counterclaims they had
11
asserted against each other.
ECF No. 111.
12
C.
Proposed Third Amended Complaint
13
Plaintiffs now seek to reopen the pleadings by filing an
14
amended complaint, the 3AC.
15
plaintiff, Sacramento Transitions Group ("STG"), to replace Metro
16
Talent.
17
STG rented office space from Defendants in California.
18
Mot. Ex. 1 ("3AC").
The 3AC would add a new named
Like Metro Talent and Circle Click,
The 3AC would also reassert the fraud claim the Court
19
previously dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiffs contend that new
20
evidence produced through discovery warrants reconsideration of the
21
dismissal of the fraud claim.
22
portion of an internal RMG training document from April 2004, which
23
states:
Specifically, Plaintiffs point to a
24
25
26
27
Avoiding
objections:
By
eliminating
all
of
the
recurring costs from the [Office] Service Agreement,
we will be able to avoid any potential objections
about the overall monthly cost by those people that
have to sign-off on the deal but are removed from the
original sales process.
28
5
1
3AC ¶ 31; ECF No. 131 ("Apr. 2004 Memo").
2
this language shows that Defendants actively concealed the
3
additional fees at the time of contract formation.
4
Plaintiffs assert that
To support their fraud claim, Plaintiffs also include a new
5
section in 3AC entitled "Predatory Sales Practices."
3AC ¶¶ 39-44.
6
In this section, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have promulgated
7
uniform sales policies and procedures, instructing their employees
8
to communicate the following to prospective clients: "[w]e work
9
with a one page service agreement"; Defendants offer free domestic
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
phone calls and internet access; everything is included in one
11
monthly bill; and common areas include a fully-equipped kitchen,
12
business lounge, restrooms, and a welcoming reception.
13
Plaintiffs also allege, for the first time, that Circle Click did
14
not receive the House Rules or the Services Price Guide before it
15
executed the Office Services Agreement with RMG.
16
Id. ¶ 41.
Id. ¶ 68.
Though Plaintiffs do not mention it in their Motion, the 3AC
17
also asserts a new predicate UCL violation.
Specifically, the 3AC
18
asserts that Defendants violated California Business and
19
Professions Code section 10130 by acting as unlicensed real estate
20
agents or brokers that lease real property in exchange for fees.
21
Id. ¶ 109.
22
23
III. LEGAL STANDARD
24
A.
Motion for Leave to Amend
25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to
26
amend as a matter of course in a number of circumstances, none of
27
which are relevant here.
28
cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), in all other
6
1
party's written consent or with leave of the court.
"The court
2
should freely give leave when justice so requires."
Fed. R. Civ.
3
P. 15(a)(2).
4
In determining whether to grant leave to amend, "a court must
5
be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate
6
decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or
7
technicalities."
8
Cir. 1981).
9
pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality."
United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th
"Accordingly, Rule 15's policy favoring amendments to
Id.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
(internal quotations omitted).
Five factors are taken into account
11
to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: "bad faith,
12
undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of
13
amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the
14
complaint."
15
2004).
Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir.
16
B.
Motion for Reconsideration
17
Since Plaintiffs seek to reassert the fraud claim that was
18
previously dismissed with prejudice, they are also moving for
19
reconsideration.
20
Local Rule 7-9, which requires the moving party to show: (1) a
21
material difference in fact or law that was not previously known
22
and could not have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable
23
diligence; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of
24
law; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material
25
facts or dispositive legal arguments.
26
"[A]bsent highly unusual circumstances," a motion for
27
reconsideration should be denied.
28
Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Civil
Civ. L. R. 7-9(b).
389 Orange St. Partners v.
7
1
2
IV.
DISCUSSION
For the purposes of the instant motion, the Court must
3
determine whether to allow Plaintiffs to (1) reassert their fraud
4
claim, (2) add STG as an additional named plaintiff, and (3) assert
5
new predicate violations of the UCL.
6
A.
Fraud
7
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs' fraud claim with
8
prejudice.
Thus, Plaintiffs cannot reassert the claim absent (1)
9
newly discovered evidence, (2) an intervening change in the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
controlling law, or (3) a showing that the Court's committed clear
11
error in rendering its prior decision.
12
first ground.
Plaintiffs move under the
13
As the Court previously held, there are at least four
14
circumstances in which nondisclosure may constitute actionable
15
fraud: "(1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with
16
the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of
17
material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant
18
actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when
19
the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses
20
some material facts."
21
Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Markets Corp., 157 Cal. App. 4th
22
835, 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)).
23
Apr. 2013 Order at 9 (quoting OCM Principal
In the April 2013 Order, the Court dismissed the fraud claim
24
pleaded in the 2AC because Plaintiffs had failed to allege that
25
Defendants had exclusive knowledge of the relevant facts.
26
Court reasoned that "Plaintiffs had at least constructive knowledge
27
of [Defendants' allegedly illicit] fees."
28
disclosed in the House Rules and the Service Price Guide.
8
Id.
Id.
The
The fees were
Id. at
1
9-11.
2
document, they had failed to make such an allegation in their 2AC.
3
Id. at 11.
4
Plaintiffs acknowledged that they had "read and understood" the
5
Terms and Conditions, which disclosed that the parties' agreements
6
included the House Rules.
7
that the House Rules expressly referenced the Service Price Guide.
8
Id. at 9-11.
9
While Plaintiffs argued that they had received neither
Moreover, by signing the Office Service Agreement,
Id. at 10-11.
The Court also reasoned
The new evidence offered by Plaintiffs does not change this
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
analysis.
The April 2004 Memo states that RMG removed references
11
to additional fees from the Office Service Agreement "to avoid any
12
potential objections about the overall monthly costs."
13
Plaintiffs argue that this shows that Defendants suppressed or
14
actively concealed a material fact.
15
the Office Service Agreement no longer expressly discloses the
16
additional fees, it does reference the Terms and Conditions.
17
the Court has repeatedly held, this is sufficient to defeat a fraud
18
claim, since the Terms and Conditions, as well as the documents it
19
references, put Plaintiffs on notice that additional fees might be
20
assessed.
21
they turned a blind eye to information available to them.
22
Moreover, the April 2004 Memo does in fact instruct sales
23
representatives to discuss additional fees in certain situations:
24
"If the prospect asks for additional information for additional
25
services, present the Service[] [Price] Guide[,] including our
26
Monthly Package pricing.
27
monthly number (which typically includes office fees, phone[,] and
3AC ¶ 31.
The Court disagrees.
While
As
Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for fraud merely because
If the prospect requests an 'all-in'
28
9
1
connectivity), provide them with that information."
2
Apr. 2014 Mem.
at 1.
3
Nor do Plaintiffs' new allegations of predatory sales
4
practices warrant reconsideration of the Court's prior orders.
5
These allegations are not specific enough to support a claim for
6
fraud.
7
uniform practice of making certain statements to prospective
8
renters and that these statements give the false impression that
9
renters will not be assessed additional monthly fees for services
Plaintiffs essentially allege that Defendants have a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
such as internet, telephone, and kitchen amenities.
11
be pleaded with particularity.
12
Plaintiffs cannot merely point to a general policy and ask the
13
Court to assume that the policy was implemented in a deceptive
14
manner.
15
when, where, and how of the misconduct charged."
16
rel Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055
17
(9th Cir. 2011).
18
determine whether the challenged statements were in fact made to
19
Plaintiffs, whether the statements were actually false, or whether
20
Plaintiffs reasonably relied on them. 3
21
above (and at length in the Court's prior Orders), Plaintiffs'
22
fraud claims are barred because the documents referenced by the
23
Office Service Agreement disclose the additional fees.
24
3
25
26
27
28
But fraud must
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
A plaintiff alleging fraud must plead "the who, what,
United States ex
Absent more specificity, the Court cannot
In any event, as discussed
In their reply brief, Plaintiffs argue that they specifically
allege "that each of the Plaintiffs saw one or more of the
advertisements that this Court has held may proceed." Reply at 9.
The Court previously found that these advertisements could support
Plaintiffs' false advertising claims under the UCL and FAL, Apr.
2013 Order at 17-21, but never opined on whether they could support
a claim for fraud. Moreover, as the Court has discussed in prior
orders, the pleading standards for fraud are higher than those for
UCL and FAL violations, especially with respect to reliance. See
id. at 11-12, 19. Plaintiffs conflate the two standards here.
10
The Court also declines to reverse its prior orders because
1
2
Plaintiffs now plead -- for the first time -- that they did not
3
receive the House Rules or the Service Price Guide.
4
why Plaintiffs did not plead this in their 2AC.
5
Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants actively concealed the
6
House Rules or the Service Price Guide.
7
expressly referenced in the Terms and Conditions, and Plaintiffs
8
acknowledged that they read and understood the Terms and Conditions
9
when they signed the Office Service Agreement.
It is unclear
More importantly,
The House Rules are
Plaintiffs argue
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
that the Terms and Conditions were not incorporated by reference
11
into the Office Service Agreement merely because the Office Service
12
Agreement contains a disclaimer that they read and understood the
13
Terms and Conditions.
14
is not whether the Terms and Conditions are enforceable, but
15
whether Plaintiffs can state a claim for fraud.
16
concludes that they cannot.
Reply at 9.
But the pertinent question here
The Court
Accordingly, the Court declines to allow Plaintiffs to
17
18
reassert their fraud claim.
Whether or not the conduct discussed
19
above constitutes unfair competition actionable under the UCL is a
20
separate question that the Court has addressed in prior orders.
21
B.
STG
22
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' request to add STG as a new
23
putative class representative can only serve to delay this action.
24
Opp'n at 15.
25
executed an Office Agreement for a RMG location in California and
26
who paid one or more of the allegedly unauthorized changes.
27
91.
28
putative class is already represented by Circle Click.
STG would bring claims on behalf of all persons who
3AC ¶
Defendants contend that adding STG is unnecessary since the
11
Opp'n at
1
15.
2
Metro Talent, which recently settled with Defendants.
3
Plaintiffs respond that they should be permitted to replace
The Court agrees with Defendants.
Adding STG as a new
4
plaintiff might have been warranted had both Metro Talent and
5
Circle Click chosen to withdraw from this litigation.
6
Click remains in the case, and there is no indication that it is
7
unable to adequately represent the interests of the putative class,
8
including STG.
9
Plaintiffs' claims or the relief to which the class is entitled.
But Circle
Thus, at this point, adding STG would not alter
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
However, it would further delay this litigation, which has been
11
pending for almost two years now.
12
the interests of the putative class.
13
Such a delay would not advance
Accordingly, the Court declines to allow Plaintiffs to add a
14
new class representative at this time.
The Court may revisit this
15
issue if Circle Click settles, its claim is mooted, or if the Court
16
finds that it has engaged in conduct inconsistent with the
17
interests of the class.
18
C.
UCL
19
Finally, the 3AC would add a new UCL claim.
The UCL
20
prohibits, among other things, "unlawful practices."
Cal. Bus. &
21
Prof. Code § 17200.
22
other laws, when committed pursuant to business activity, are
23
independently actionable under the UCL.
24
Super. Ct., 2 Cal. 4th 377, 383 (Cal. 1992).
25
already asserting a predicate violation of California Public
26
Utilities Code section 2890.
27
predicate violation of California Business and Professions Code
28
section 10130.
Under this prong of the UCL, violations of
Farmers Ins. Exch. v.
Plaintiffs are
In the 3AC, they assert a new
3AC ¶ 109.
12
1
Section 10130 provides that "[i]t is unlawful for any person
2
to engage in the business of, act in the capacity of, advertise as,
3
or assume to act as a real estate broker or a real estate
4
salesperson within this state without first obtaining a real estate
5
license . . . ."
6
Professions Code defines the term "real estate broker" to mean one
7
who "[l]eases or rents or offers to lease or rent, or places for
8
rent, or solicits listings of places for rent, or solicits for
9
prospective tenants . . . ."
Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 10130.
Id. § 10131(b).
The Business and
Section 10131.01
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
exempts from these restrictions: (1) the manager of a hotel [or]
11
motel, or (2) any person or entity . . . who . . . solicits or
12
arranges, or accepts reservations or money, or both, for transient
13
occupancies described in [California Civil Code § 1940(b)(1)-(2)]."
14
Id. § 10131.01.
15
transient occupancies in a hotel, motel, residence club, or other
16
facility that is subject to certain taxes, as well as occupancies
17
at a hotel or motel where the innkeeper retains a right of access.
18
Cal. Civ. Code § 1940(b).
19
Section 1940(b) describes such occupancies as
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to explain why this
20
alleged violation was not raised in any of the prior three
21
iterations of the complaint.
22
exempt from section 10130 because the Terms and Conditions
23
expressly provides that the agreement "is the commercial equivalent
24
of an agreement for accommodation(s) in a hotel" and that "the
25
client accepts that this agreement creates no tenancy interest,
26
leasehold estate or other real property interest in the client's
27
favour with respect to the accommodations."
28
ECF No. 32 Ex. B).
Next, Defendants argue that they are
Opp'n at 19-20 (citing
Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs lack
13
1
standing to bring a UCL claim predicated on a violation of section
2
10130 because Plaintiffs have failed to allege how the use of a
3
licensed real estate broker would have prevented the harm they
4
suffered as a result of the allegedly unauthorized charges.
5
20.
Id. at
6
Plaintiffs respond that they only recently learned of the
7
violation through documents produced by Defendants, Reply at 14-15,
8
though it appears that Plaintiffs should have been able to
9
determine whether Defendants were acting as realtors long before
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
these documents were produced.
11
Defendants are not exempt from section 10130, reasoning that the
12
section 10131.01 exemption is limited to hotels and transient
13
occupancies of dwelling units and that the Court previously held
14
that Defendants' services were different than those provided by
15
hotels and motels.
16
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that there is a sufficient nexus between
17
the alleged violation of section 10130 and the alleged harm because
18
"[t]he purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the
19
public from the perils incident to dealing with incompetent or
20
untrustworthy real estate practitioners."
21
Capital, LLC v. Bingo Investments, LLC, 185 Cal. App. 4th 731, 736
22
(Cal. Ct. App. 2010)).
23
Plaintiffs further argue that
Id. at 15 (citing April 2013 Order at 15).
Id. (quoting GreenLake
The Court agrees with Defendants, at least with respect to
24
their argument concerning standing.
The UCL only provides a
25
private right of action for persons who have "suffered injury in
26
fact and ha[ve] lost money or property as a result of the unfair
27
competition."
28
action is based on an unlawful business practice, "there must be a
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204.
14
Thus, where a UCL
1
causal connection between the harm suffered and the unlawful
2
business activity."
3
1099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
4
a complaining party would suffer the same harm whether or not a
5
defendant complied with the law."
6
have failed to establish a direct causal connection between the
7
alleged harm -- the assessment of additional, undisclosed fees --
8
and the alleged statutory violation -- failure to obtain a
9
realtor's license.
Daro v. Super. Ct., 151 Cal. App. 4th 1079,
"That causal connection is broken when
Id.
In this case, Plaintiffs
While section 10130 may have been enacted to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
protect the public against unscrupulous real estate practitioners,
11
it does not directly address the deceptive conduct alleged here.
12
Whether or not Defendants were required to obtain a license has no
13
bearing on whether their practice of assessing additional fees was
14
unfair or unlawful.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the proposed amendment
15
16
regarding section 10130 is futile and, therefore, denies Plaintiffs
17
leave to make such an amendment.
18
19
20
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for leave to file
21
a third amended complaint and for reconsideration of a prior order
22
is DENIED.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
March 19, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
15
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?