Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05508/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05508-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Plaintiff’s response to the March 3, 2010 OSC was due March 15, 2010. Mr. Bhambra did in

fact file his papers on March 15, 2010, but they were not docketed until March 16, 2010, and this Court

did not actually receive them until after having issued the March 16, 2010 dismissal order.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAKHBIR BHAMBRA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05508 SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

On March 16, 2010, the Court issued an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack

of federal jurisdiction. At the time the Court issued its dismissal order, it had not yet received plaintiff’s

response to a show cause order issued on March 3, 2010.1

 The Court has now reviewed plaintiff’s

submission. Plaintiff does not attempt to set forth any basis for federal jurisdiction, but seeks leave to

file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting several federal claims, including violations of RICO

and the mail and wire fraud statutes.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of the pleadings. Ordinarily, leave to

amend is granted with liberality. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th

Cir. 1990). However, there are several accepted reasons to deny leave to amend, including futility of

amendment. Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). Courts do

not ordinarily consider the validity of a proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave

to amend, but leave may be denied if the proposed amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal.

Case 3:09-cv-05508-SI Document 26 Filed 03/20/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 With respect to the former citation, plaintiff may have intended to refer to 49 C.F.R. § 392.9,

a regulation promulgated under the federal Motor Carrier Act. The latter citation does not refer to any

existing statute or regulation.

2

See Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s proposed FAC and concludes that permitting plaintiff to

amend his complaint to assert claims giving rise to federal jurisdiction would be futile. The proposed

FAC simply cites a list of federal statutes, namely 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false

statements), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud), and 18 U.S.C. § 1343

(wire fraud), without offering sufficient factual allegations in support of any of these proposed causes

of action. In addition, the proposed FAC cites to two nonexistent sections of the United States Code,

49 U.S.C. §§ 392.9 and 390.2.1.2

 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that permitting amendment of plaintiff’s complaint to add the

aforementioned federal claims would be futile, and DENIES the motion for leave to file an FAC (Docket

No. 23). Because there is still no basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court’s prior dismissal of this action,

and the judgment upon it, remain in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05508-SI Document 26 Filed 03/20/10 Page 2 of 2