Leiderman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 9 Motion to Dismiss. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2016)

Download PDF
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 LEONID LEIDERMAN, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 Case No. 16-CV-01495-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS v. Re: Dkt. No. 9 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. 17 18 On April 20, 2016, Defendant Seterus, Inc. (“Seterus”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff 19 Leonid Leiderman’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 9. 20 On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition in which Plaintiff stated that “Plaintiff does not 21 oppose the substance of Defendant’s motion as Plaintiff understands there are further facts and 22 additional information that can be added to the Complaint against Defendant.” ECF No. 23. 23 Seterus filed a reply on May 11, 2016. ECF No. 25. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 24 Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the 25 motion hearing set for July 7, 2016. 26 27 28 Because Plaintiff does not oppose Seterus’s motion, the Court GRANTS Seterus’s motion to dismiss. 1 Case No. 16-CV-01495-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be freely 2 given when justice so requires,” bearing in mind “the underlying purpose of Rule 15 . . . [is] to 3 facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 4 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (ellipsis in original). A district court may deny 5 leave to amend a complaint due to “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 6 movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice 7 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” See 8 Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (brackets in original). 9 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, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff shall do so within 21 days of the date of this Order. Failure to meet the 21 day deadline 12 to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in Seterus’s motion to 13 dismiss will result in a dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff may not add new 14 causes of action or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties pursuant to Rule 15 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: June 23, 2016 ______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. 16-CV-01495-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

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?