Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08032/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08032-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

1

Defendants requested oral argument on Ms. Baker’s motion to amend. Because both

the parties submitted memoranda in support of their positions and oral argument would not

have aided the Court's decisional process, the Court will not set oral argument. See e.g.,

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group,

Inc. v. Pacific. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christine Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Trans Union LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-8032-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Christine Baker’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Her Complaint (Doc. # 71).1

 Trans Union LLC (“Defendant”) opposes Plaintiff’s Motion

on the grounds that Plaintiff’s proposed amended claims: (1) would be futile; (2) would result

in substantial prejudice to Defendant; and (3) are not timely. The Court now rules on the

Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on June 15th, 2007, alleging violations of the Fair Credit

Reporting Act. (Compl. ¶1). Plaintiff now seeks to add two new causes of action not

included in her original Complaint: (1) unjust enrichment; and (2) tortious interference with

Case 3:07-cv-08032-JAT Document 77 Filed 06/04/08 Page 1 of 6
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

Plaintiff also seeks to add ¶¶ 17 and 70 amending her original Fair Credit Reporting

Act claims. Since these amendments are unopposed by Defendant, the Court will give

Plaintiff leave to add them.

- 2 -

contractual relations2

. (Pl.’s Mot. For Leave to Am. Compl., Doc. #71, ¶1). 

Part of Plaintiff’s business consists of correcting consumer credit reports on behalf of

her clients. Regarding her unjust enrichment claim, Plaintiff states that Defendant benefitted

from failure to accurately report the credit information of her clients. Plaintiff additionally

claims that Defendant interfered with the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and these

clients. Specifically, she claims that Defendant harmed these relationships through its failure

to accurately update these clients’ credit reports.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Motions to amend pleadings to add claims or parties are governed by Federal Rule

Civil Procedure 15(a), which provides:

A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time

before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no

responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the

trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is

served. Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of

court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given

when justice so requires.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). While the decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is within the

discretion of the trial court, “Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given

when justice so requires’; this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

(1962). “In exercising its discretion[,] . . . ‘a court must be guided by the underlying purpose

of Rule 15—to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.

. . . Thus, ‘Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with

extreme liberality.’” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations

omitted); Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)

(stating that leave to amend is generally allowed with “extraordinary liberality”). “This

liberality . . . is not dependent on whether the amendment will add causes of action or

parties.” DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

Case 3:07-cv-08032-JAT Document 77 Filed 06/04/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Since Defendant does not allege bad faith or repeated failure to cure by Plaintiff, the

Court does not address these factors here.

- 3 -

The extremely liberal policy in favor of amendments, however, is subject to some

limitations. The United States Supreme Court has established that motions to amend

should be granted unless the district court determines that there has been a showing of:

(1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motives on the part of the movant; (3) repeated

failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing

party; or (5) futility of the proposed amendment3

. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. “Generally, this

determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.”

Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing DCD Programs,

833 F.2d at 186). Significantly, “[t]he party opposing amendment bears the burden of

showing prejudice,” futility, or one of the other permissible reasons for denying a motion to

amend. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187; see Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993,

999 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that leave to amend should be freely given unless opposing party

makes “an affirmative showing of either prejudice or bad faith”). Regarding the futility of

amendments to add claims, “[a] district court does not err in denying leave to amend where

the amendment would be futile . . . or would be subject to dismissal.” Saul v. United States,

928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff proposes two new claims in her amended Complaint. The Court must now

determine if these proposed claims are untimely, prejudicial, or futile, and therefore should

not be added.

A. Unjust Enrichment

In order to state a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show: (1) an

enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a connection between the enrichment and the

impoverishment; (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and the impoverishment;

and (5) the absence of a legal remedy. Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Arizona NA, 48 P.3d

Case 3:07-cv-08032-JAT Document 77 Filed 06/04/08 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

485, 491 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, 2002). Quantum meruit damages are imposed when a party

prevails under unjust enrichment. W. Corr. Group, Inc. v. Tierney, 96 P.3d 1070, 1077 (Ariz.

App. Div. 1, 2004). In order to recover these damages, a party must show that: (1) the other

party was unjustly enriched at the expense of the claimant; (2) the claimant rendered services

that benefitted the other party; and (3) the claimant conferred this benefit under

circumstances that would render inequitable payment. Id. The plaintiff will receive as

damages any benefit conferred to the defendant at the plaintiff’s expense.

Here, Plaintiff has alleged no facts that show that Plaintiff directly conferred any

benefit to Defendant. While Plaintiff claims that she lost some revenue as a result of

Defendant’s actions or inactions, Plaintiff has not shown that she rendered services to

Defendant that specifically benefitted Defendant at her expense. Plaintiff alleges no facts in

her complaint that, even if taken as true, would warrant damages for unjust enrichment.

Therefore, an amendment to add this claim would be futile, and the Court will not grant the

Motion to Amend with regards to this claim.

B. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

1. Futility

A valid claim for tortious interference with contractual relations must contain the

following elements: (1) existence of a valid contractual relationship; (2) knowledge of the

relationship on the part of the interferor; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a

breach; (4) resultant damages to the party whose relationship has been disrupted; and (5) that

the defendant acted improperly. Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 106 P.3d 1020, 1025

(Ariz. 2005).

Here, Plaintiff did not allege in her proposed Amended Complaint that Defendant

knew of any contractual relationship between her and her clients, nor that they intentionally

caused a breach of that contract. However, in her Response to Defendant’s Opposition,

Plaintiff does in fact state that there was a contractual relationship, that Defendant knew of

this relationship, and that there was an intentional interference causing a breach. Thus, this

Court cannot say that, as a matter of law, this claim would be absolutely futile. Plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-08032-JAT Document 77 Filed 06/04/08 Page 4 of 6
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

4

This motion is granted without prejudice to Defendant filing a 12(b)(6) Motion to

Dismiss these claims.

5

Plaintiff will, of course, be expected to allege all elements necessary for these claims

in the newly amended complaint.

- 5 -

should therefore be given an opportunity to test her claim on the merits rather than have the

claim cast aside on a technicality.

2. Timeliness

This amendment is timely, as it falls before the amendment deadline set by Court at

the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. 

3. Substantial Prejudice

While Defendant claims that the amended complaint will “result in substantial

prejudice, by expanding the scope of discovery, imposing additional litigation costs on Trans

Union, and delaying disposition of this case,” (Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. For Leave to Am.

the Compl. 1), granting leave to amend does not preclude Defendant from filing a 12(b)(6)

Motion to Dismiss. Further, Defendant has not shown that the scope of discovery will be so

expanded as to be unduly onerous to Defendant, nor that Defendant can not complete

discovery by the October 24, 2008 deadline.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the Foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Her Complaint (Doc.

# 71) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Motion is

GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff’s additional facts pertaining to her Fair Credit Reporting

Act claims and adding the tortious interference with contract claim4

.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. #

71) be stricken. Defendant shall file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order

within 10 days of the date of this Order5

. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Defendants’ First Motion for Judgment

Case 3:07-cv-08032-JAT Document 77 Filed 06/04/08 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

on the Pleadings (Doc. #42) without prejudice as moot because it no longer responds to the

operative complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. #45)

without prejudice as moot because it no longer responds to the operative complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibits (Doc.

#69) as moot because it relates to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which

the Court has denied as moot.

DATED this 4th day of June, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08032-JAT Document 77 Filed 06/04/08 Page 6 of 6