Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01124/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEGG, on behalf of

himself and similarly situated

individuals,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 14cv1124-WQH-BGS

ORDER

vs.

E-Z Rent A Car, Inc., a Florida

corporation d/b/a in California as

FLORIDA E-Z RENT A CAR, INC., 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (ECF No.

11).

Background

On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff, Christopher Legg (“Legg”) filed a Complaint for

Damages arising from violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

(“FACTA”) Amendment to the Fair Debt Reporting Act (“FRCA”). (ECF No. 1). The

Complaint states that “[o]n or before the date that this complaint was filed, Plaintiff and

members of the Class were provided receipt(s) by Defendant that failed to comply with

the [15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)] (“Receipt Provision”).” Id. at 9. The Complaint alleges that

Defendant “knowingly, willfully, and/or recklessly violated and continues to violate the

FCRA and Receipt Provision.” Id. The Complaint states that “[a]s a result of

- 1 - 14cv1124-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-01124-WQH-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Defendant’s willful violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff and members of the Class

continue to be exposed to an elevated risk of identity theft.” Id. at 10. The Complaint

further states that “[d]efendant is liable to Plaintiff and members of the Class pursuant

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681 for statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and

costs.” Id.

On June 9, 2014, this Court granted a Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for

Defendant to File Responsive Pleadings. (ECF No. 8). Pursuant to the Order, E-Z Rent

A CAR was to file a response to Legg’s Complaint no later than July 16, 2014. Id.

On July 11, 2014, this Court granted a Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for

Defendant to File Responsive Pleading. (ECF No. 10). Pursuant to the Order, E-Z

RENT A CAR is to file a response to the Complaint no later than September 19, 2014. 

Id.

On August 11, 2014, Legg filed the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 11). Legg

requested leave to amend his complaint to add “(1) a nationwide class allegations to the

already existing claim made under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

(“FACTA”) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., as

amended (the “FCRA”); AND (2) an additional fact to the currently existing allegations

against Defendant.” (ECF No. 11 at 2).

On August 29, 2014, Defendant, E-Z Rent A Car, Inc. (“E-Z Rent A Car”) filed

a response to Legg’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. 

(ECF No. 12).

Contentions of Parties

Legg contends that he has exhibited no bad faith nor undue delay, nor could he

have at this early stage. (ECF No. 11 at 4). Legg further contends there will be no

prejudice to Defendant because the proposed amendment is early in the litigation and

Defendant’s possible defenses are no different whether Legg alleges a statewide or

nationwide class because the claims remain identical in substance. Id. at 5.

- 2 - 14cv1124-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-01124-WQH-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 4
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

E-Z Rent A Car contends that the recently discovered information could have

been discovered at the time Legg filed the original complaint because the information

actually existed more than two years before the filing of the original complaint. (ECF

No. 12. at 1). E-Z Rent A Car contends that the Plaintiff’s amendment is an improper

attempt to expand the class to include all potential new plaintiffs between May 1, 2014

and the date of the filing of the First Amended Complaint, while still maintaining all

potential class members spanning back two years prior to the filing of the original

Complaint. Id. at 2. E-Z Rent A Car further contends that the Plaintiff’s decision to

amend has derailed the attempts by the parties to mediate Plaintiff’s claim and obviate

the need for a protected court battle. Id.

Motion for Leave to Amend

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 determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation 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.

After review of the motion, the proposed first amended complaint, and the filings

of the parties, the Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong

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

of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The Court will

- 3 - 14cv1124-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-01124-WQH-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 3 of 4
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

defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed first amended

complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212

F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of the

challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is

granted and the amended pleading is filed.”). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is

GRANTED. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff shall file the proposed first amended complaint

attached to the motion within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.

DATED: September 26, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv1124-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-01124-WQH-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 4 of 4