Wallace v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 40 Motion to Dismiss. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SCOTT WALLACE,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 16-CV-00556-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 40
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On April 11, 2016, Defendant Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc. (“Credit Bureau”) filed

19

a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Scott Wallace’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 40. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Credit Bureau filed a reply

21

noting Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion to dismiss on April 27, 2016. ECF No. 49.

22

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without

23

oral argument and VACATES the motion hearing set for June 30, 2016. The Case Management

24

Conference scheduled for June 30, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. remains as set.

25
26
27
28

Because Plaintiff did not oppose Credit Bureau’s motion, the Court GRANTS Credit
Bureau’s motion to dismiss.
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be freely
1
Case No. 16-CV-00556-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

given when justice so requires,” bearing in mind “the underlying purpose of Rule 15 . . . [is] to

2

facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith,

3

203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (ellipsis in original). A district court may deny

4

leave to amend a complaint due to “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the

5

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice

6

to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” See

7

Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (brackets in original).

8

Because the Court concludes that amendment would not be futile, the Court dismisses
Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint,

10

Plaintiff shall do so within 21 days of the date of this Order. Failure to meet the 21 day deadline

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in Credit Bureau’s

12

motion to dismiss will result in a dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff may not

13

add new causes of action or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties pursuant

14

to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: June 23, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 16-CV-00556-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS