Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01056/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01056-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COURTNEY DENNIS, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1056-WQH-BGS

ORDER

v.

RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,

a Delaware corporation; RALPH

LAUREN RETAIL, INC., a Delaware

corporation; and DOES 1-20,

inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The motion before the Court is the motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint. (ECF No. 28).

I. BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Courtney Dennis filed a class action complaint against

Defendants Ralph Lauren Corporation and Ralph Lauren Retail, Inc. (ECF No. 1). On

July 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint against Defendants

alleging causes of action arising from Defendants’ alleged deceptive pricing of Ralph

Lauren merchandise. (ECF No. 13). On August 22, 2016, Defendants filed a motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20). On December 20, 2016, the Court

dismissed the complaint in its entirety. (ECF No. 25). The Order stated, “Plaintiff shall

file any motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on or before January 17,

- 1 - 16cv1056-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-01056-WQH-BGS Document 40 Filed 04/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

2017.” Id. 

On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint.1

 (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff’s proposed second amended class action complaint

alleges three causes of action: (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Laws,

California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of

California’s False Advertising Laws, California Business & Professions Code Sections

17500, et seq.; (3) violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California

Civil Code section 1750, et seq. (ECF No. 28-2). On February 21, 2017, Defendants

filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 34). Attached to their response, Defendants

filed a declaration by Jennifer Avallon, Senior Vice President of Merchandising at

Ralph Lauren Corporation, stating that the shirt Plaintiff allegedly purchased is the “SS

Stretch Julie Polo” and was sold for $74.99 during September 2015. Id. at 24-25. On

March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 39).

II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Plaintiff contends that leave to amend should be granted because Defendants

cannot demonstrate prejudice or undue delay. (ECF No. 28-1 at 3-4). Plaintiff

contends that she seeks leave to amend to cure deficiencies in the first amended

complaint. Plaintiff contends that there is no evidence she is acting in bad faith. Id. at

4-5. Plaintiff contends that amendment would not be futile because “the deficiencies

identified by the Court can be cured by amendment” and she alleges a “viable legal

claim.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff contends that extrinsic evidence is irrelevant at the pleading

stage where the factual allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are to

be taken as true. (ECF No. 39 at 2). Plaintiff contends that the declaration provided by

Defendants is “inadmissible hearsay/cumulative account of supposed sales data that

Defendants have refused to provide to Plaintiff and that has not been subjected to cross1

 Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on January 17, 2017. (ECF No. 26). On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata stating that Plaintiff “erroneously set the hearing for February 15, 2017” in its motion. (ECF No. 27). On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed the “Corrected Notice of Motion and

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 28). 

- 2 - 16cv1056-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-01056-WQH-BGS Document 40 Filed 04/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

examination in discovery.” (ECF No. 39 at 2). Plaintiff contends that even if

Defendants’ factual assertion was true and could be properly considered at this stage

of the proceedings, it would not be fatal to the proposed second amended complaint. 

Id. at 3. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has been afforded two opportunities to state her

claim and that any further amendment would be futile. (ECF No. 34). Defendants

contend that the allegations regarding shirt pricing in the proposed second amended

complaint “are sharply different from the first two pleadings . . . . which calls into

serious question the bona fides of Plaintiff’s allegations[.]” Id. at 4. Defendants

contend that the proposed second amended complaint does not satisfy the plausibility

requirement of Rule 8(a) or the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b). Id. at 5.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s bad faith and undue delay in seeking amendment,

the previous amendments to her complaint, and the prejudice that would result from

granting leave to file a second amended complaint all weigh against granting leave to

amend; however, Defendants contend the Court “need only consider the SAC’s futility

to deny Plaintiff’s motion.” Id. at 14. Defendants contend that the standard for

granting leave to amend is the same as for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and the

Court cannot grant this motion because the proposed second amended complaint fails

to state “with particularity, non-conclusory matter that if taken as true, plausibly

establishes Ms. Dennis’s false advertising claim.” Id. at 18. Defendants contend that

“contrary to the allegations of the [second amended complaint], Ralph Lauren in fact

sold the SS Julie Stretch Polo women’s shirt at the full $74.99 ‘Our Price’ during

September 2015.” Id. at 21. 

III. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme

- 3 - 16cv1056-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-01056-WQH-BGS Document 40 Filed 04/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

Court offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant

a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as 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, futility of

amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101

(9th Cir. 2004). “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and

others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries

the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted). “The

party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs,

Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong

showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule

15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

The Court has reviewed the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint

and all related filings. Defendants filed the declaration by Jennifer Avallon in support

of their contention that amendment would be futile. (ECF No. 34 at 24-25). The Court

concludes that consideration of the declaration is improper at this stage of the

proceedings. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (“As

a general rule, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in

ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)

(holding that on a motion to dismiss, “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations,

a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise

to an entitlement to relief”). 

 The Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong

showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption of Rule 15(a) in favor of

granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Any challenge to

the merits of the proposed second amended complaint will be considered after the

amended pleading is filed. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. C-04-

- 4 - 16cv1056-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-01056-WQH-BGS Document 40 Filed 04/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

4708, 2006 WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006) (“In view of Rule 15(a)’s

permissive standard, courts ordinarily defer consideration of challenges to the merits

of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended

pleading is filed.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint (ECF No. 28) is granted. No later than fourteen (14) days from the date this

Order is filed, Plaintiff may file the proposed second amended complaint which is

attached to the motion. If Plaintiff does not file the second amended complaint within

fourteen (14) days, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to close the case. 

DATED: April 12, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 16cv1056-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-01056-WQH-BGS Document 40 Filed 04/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5