Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01187/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01187-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

LEONARD VAUGHN OLIPHANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01187-HSG 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 60

On June 4, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint on the ground that the Amended Complaint failed to allege facts supporting personal 

jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 55. In short, Plaintiff has sued four individuals—all of whom either work 

for Bank of America or worked at a law firm allegedly engaged by Bank of America—without 

pleading how personal jurisdiction is appropriate over the Defendants as individuals (as opposed 

to Bank of America as a company). Id. The Court provided Plaintiff over three weeks to file a 

Second Amended Complaint to address this deficiency. Id. at 5. However, given the extensions 

of time already provided to Plaintiff, see Dkt. Nos. 23 and 35, and the need to efficiently manage 

its docket, the Court informed Plaintiff that the Court would not consider a motion to extend this 

deadline and that failure to file a timely Second Amended Complaint would result in dismissal 

with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 55 at 5.

Despite these clear instructions, Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint by the

June 26, 2015 deadline, or at any time thereafter. Instead, Plaintiff filed what he termed a 

“Request Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff’s Objection to Court’s Order Granting Motions to 

Dismiss; Notice of Harm and Damage and Distress of Bond.” Dkt. No. 57 at 1. Plaintiff’s 

submission improperly seeks to reargue (and raise new arguments) concerning the question of 

personal jurisdiction resolved by the Court’s June 4th order. See id. Plaintiff requests that the 

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 64 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Court vacate its order, or, in the alternative, correct the order “so as to pave the way for an orderly 

appeal.” Id. at 9. In that submission, Plaintiff affirmatively represented that he “will not be 

amending his Amended Claim . . . .” Id. 

Accordingly, there is currently no operative complaint in this action and the Court must 

decide whether to permit Plaintiff another opportunity to amend. Although a court will generally

grant leave to amend a dismissed complaint, leave to amend may be denied “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.’” Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 

522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). In this case, Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to 

amend his pleading. Dkt. No. 55; see also Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 

F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 

particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”) (citation omitted). He

refused to do so. Dkt. No. 57 at 9; see also Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 

981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (Feb. 10, 2009) (“The fact that Zucco failed to correct these 

deficiencies in its Second Amended Complaint is ‘a strong indication that the plaintiffs have no 

additional facts to plead.’”) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s outright refusal to amend in 

contravention of the Court’s order strongly suggests that he has “made [his] best case and [has]

been found wanting.” Id. 

Pursuant to the Court’s June 4, 2015 order, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 

DISMISSED WITH PREDUJICE.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

This Order also terminates Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, Dkt. No. 60, 

which is now moot in light of the Court’s ruling.

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 64 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 2