Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00556/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00556-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-00556-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SCOTT WALLACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-00556-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

Case 5:16-cv-00556-LHK Document 69 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-CV-00556-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

leave to amend a complaint due to “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 allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” See 

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

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, 

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

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

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

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

to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00556-LHK Document 69 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 2