2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-23-2009 

# D on ald S t. C l air v

. Fin D efe nd ant s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4870

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D on ald S t. C l air v

. F in D efe nd ants " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 957. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/957NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4870

___________ DON ALD F . S T. CLAI R, A ppel l ant

v. C IT IZ E N S F IN A N C IA L G R O U P ; R B S C IT IZ E N S , N .A .; CI TI ZEN S BA N K O F PEN N SY LV A N I A ; CH A RT ER O N E FI N A N CI A L SER V I CE S; L AWRE NC E K. F I S H; S T E P HE N D. S T E I NOUR ; NOR M AN J . DE L UC A; DANA D RA GO; RO BE RT M . M AHONY ; BE N B AR ONE ; L AI RD BO UL DE N; R O B E R T M . C U R L E Y ; JO E D E W H IR S T ; C H R IS T O P H E R Y . D O W N S ; EDW AR D O . HA ND Y; BRA DFO RD B. KO PP ; J OSEPH J . M AR CA UR ELE; THER ESA M CLA UG HLI N; RA LPH J . PAPA; SAN DR A PI ERCE; E DWI N S ANT OS ; CA T HL E E N A. S CH M I DT ; S CO T T C. S WANS ON; M A RI A TED ESC O ; H A L R . TO V I N ; U N K O W N a nd U N N A M ED D EFEN D A N TS; RO BERT E. SM YTH

__________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 01257) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J er om e B . Si m andl e

_____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y23, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON2 _________ P E R C UR I AM D onal d St . C l ai r , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse yg ra n tin g th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss h is compl ai ntw i thoutgr ant i ng hi m l eave t o amend hi s compl ai nta s econd t i m e. Forthe r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. A s w e w ri t e sol el yfor the b enef i tof the part i es, w e setforth b ri efl yon l ytho se fac t s nece s s aryt o ouranal y s i s . D onal d St . C l ai rand hi s now dece as ed mot heropened a C iti z e n s B a n k c h e c k in g a c c o u n t in C o n n e c ticu t, ha d S o c ial S e c u rityc h e c k s a u to m a tica lly depos i t ed i nt o t he ac countfr om the t i m e i tw as opened unt i l J anuary2007, and keptt he a c c o u n t in u s e e v e n a f

te r h e m o v e d to N e w J e rs e ya t a n u n s p e c if ie d d a te . I n M ar ch 2008, St . C l ai rs ued C i t i zens Fi nanci al G r oup, i t s par entcorpor at i on, R B S C i t i zens , N . A . , s ever al of i t s banks , and numer ous offi cer s and exe cut i ve comm i t t ee m ember s of thos e ent i t i es ( col l ect i vel y , “D efe ndant s ”) i n the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyaft eri ncurr i ng fee s forover dr aw i ng hi s C i t i zens B ank che cki ng a c c o u n t. A ccor di ng t o St . C l ai r , hi s acc ountw as a mer e $2. 87 over dr aw n, y ethe i ncurr ed $441 i n penal t i es underC i t i zens B ank’ s over dr aftpol i cybefor e he w as even not i fi ed ofA ccordi ng t o A pp el l ant, i n 2 00 6, the b ank charged $1 7 p er i t em for the fir st 1 over dr aftday , $30 peri t em for the s econd a nd thi r d over dr aftday s , $37 peri t em i f the acc ountw as over dr aw n forfourday s orm or e, and a $5 “ Sust ai ned O ver dr aftFee” i f an acc ountr emai ned over dr aw n form or e than s i x cons ecut i ve bus i nes s day s . A ppel l ant cl ai m s the over dr aftfee s tructur e cha nged i n 2007 t o $35 peri t em for the fi r s t , s econd, and thi r d over dr aftday s , and $38 peri t em for f ourorm or e over dr aftday s . T he “ S u s ta in e d O v e rd ra f

t F e e ” w a s a p p a re n tly in c re a s e d to $ 3 5 . 3 th e d e f icie n c y . In a d d iti o n to c laim in g th a t th e b a n k d e c e p tiv e lyh id e s its f e e s f ro m its 1 cus t om er s , St . C l ai ral l eged thati tw as fr audul entforthe bank t o have w ai t ed appr oxi m at el yfourt o s i x day s t o m ai l hi s over dr aftnot i ces , gi ven thatthe over dr aftfee g ro w s e a c h d a yth e a c c o u n t r e m a in s o v e rd ra w n . A ft erthe D efe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , St . C l ai rr es ponded w i th a 57- page amended compl ai nton J ul y7, 2008. T her e, he al l eged thatthe over dr aftfee s had bee n f a l s e l y i n f l a t e d b e c a u s e o f

th e D e f e n d a n t s ’ m o n o p o l i z a t i o n o f th e m a r k e to r , a l t e rn a t i v e l y, as a resu lto f a co n sp ir ac yb etw ee n D ef en d an ts an d v ariou s “u n k n o w n p erso n co n sp ir ators of compet i t orbanks and/ orbank ent erpr i s es . ” S t. C lair a ss e rts tw o g e n e ra l cla im s a n d m u lti p le s u b c laim s a g a in st th e D e f e n d a n ts s t emm i ng fr om the over dr aftpol i ci es : ( 1) the D efe ndant s i l l egal l ycons pi r ed t o fi x the fee s i n vi ol at i on of the Sherm an A nt i trus tA ct , 15 U . S. C . §§ 1, 2 and the N ew J er s ey A nt i trus tA ct , § 56: 9- 3; and ( 2) the D efe ndant s us ed mai l fr aud, bank fr aud, and ext or t i on t o for ce hi m t o paythe over dr aftfee s i n vi ol at i on of the R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C or rupt O rg a n iz a tio n s (“ R IC O ” ) A c t, 1 8 .U .S . § § 1 9 6 1 -6 3 . I n s uppor tof the cons pi r acycl ai m s , St . C l ai rpr ovi des the over dr aftfee s tructur es4

o f se v era l com p eti n g b an k s w h ich a p p ea r t o b e sim il ar to C it izen s B an k ’s fe e struc ture and furthernot es thats ever al of the i ndi vi dual D efe ndant s , C i t i zens B ank off i cer s , have pr i orw or k exper i ence atot herbanks w i th s i m i l arover dr aftfee s tructur es , ther ebygi vi ng th e m o p p o r tu n i ty t o e n t e ri n t o a c o n s p i r a c y. U p o n D e f

e n d a n ts’ s e c o n d m o tio n to d ism iss , the D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t S t. C l ai rfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed and di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i thoutgi vi ng St . C l ai rl eave t o amend a s econd t i m e. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and conduc tde novo r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al pur s uantt o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) . Phi l l i ps v. C ountyof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e ac ceptas true al l of the al l egati on s contai ned i n the com plai nt and draw reas on able i nferences i n fav or of a p ro se pl ai nt i ff. I d. at231; s ee a l s o E r i cks on v. Par dus , 127 S. C t . 2197, 2200 ( 2007) ( per cur i am). “To survi ve a mot i on t o di s m i s s , a compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci entfac tual m att er , acc ept ed as true, t o ‘ s t at e a c l ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ’ ” A s hcr oft v. I qb a l , 12 9 S. Ct . 19 37 , 19 49 ( 20 09 ) ( qu ot i ng Bel l A t l a nt i c Corp. v. Tw ombl y , 55 0 U. S. 5 4 4 , 5 7 0 (2 0 0 7 )) . III . S t. C lair a d v a n c e s f

o u r a n titru st c laim s. F irst, h e c laim s th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts v io late d S e c tio n O n e o f th e S h e rm a n A n titru st A c t b yc o llu d in g w ith o th e r b a n k s toW e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t S t. C lair’ s a lleg a tio n s a re su f f icie n t to 2 confe rs t andi ng, as he al l eged the type of ha r m the ant i trus tl aw s w er e i nt ended t o pr event and a pe r s onal i nj urys t emm i ng fr om the D efe ndant s ’ al l eged unl aw ful act s as r equi r ed by G u lfstr ea m III A sso cs., Inc . v . G u lfstr ea m A ero sp ac e C o rp., 9 9 5 F . 2 d 4 2 5 , 4 2 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). S ee also A n g eli co v . L eh igh V all eyH o sp it al, Inc . , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e al s o not e, as di d t he D i s tr i ctC our t , thatthe l anguage of the r el evantpor t i ons of the N ew J er s eyA nt i trus tA cti s vi r tual l yi dent i cal t o thatof the Sherm an A nt i trus tA ct a n d th a t th e N e w Je rse yA c t it se lf m a n d a tes th a t it“ sh a ll b e c o n stru e d in h a rm o n yw ith th e ru lin g ju d icia l in terp re tatio n s o f c o m p a ra b le F e d e ra l an titru st s tatu tes a n d to eff ectuat e, i ns ofaras pr act i cabl e, a uni form i tyi n the l aw s of thos e s t at es w hi ch ena cti t . ” N .J .S .A . 5 6 :9 -1 8 ; P a te l v . S o ri a n o , 8 4 8 A .2 d 8 0 3 , 8 2 6 (N .J . S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv ., 2 0 0 4 ). A ccor di ngl y , the s t at e l aw ant i trus tcl ai m s ar e onl yvi abl e i f the corr es pondi ng fede r al c laim s a re su f

f icie n t. 5 ill e g a llyse t o v e rd ra f

t f e e s b e y o n d f

a ir m a rk e t ra tes . N e x t, he a lleg e s th a t th e a rtific ially i nfl at ed over dr aftfee s ar e onl ypos s i bl e bec aus e D efe ndant s m onopol i ze the banki ng m arketi n v i olat i on of S ect i on T w o o f t he S herm an A nti trustA ct . H i s fi nal tw o an t i trust c laim s a re m a tch in g sta te la w c laim s p u rsu a n t to th e N e w Je rse yA n titru st A c t, N .J. S tat. A nn. §§ 56: 9- 3, - 4. 2 T o s t at e a c l ai m underei therSect i on 1 of the Sherm an A ctorthe N ew J er s ey A nt i trus tA ct§ 56: 9- 3, a compl ai nantm us tal l ege thattw o orm or e ent i t i es form ed a co m b ination o r co n sp ir ac y . T w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U . S . at 54 8 ; Pa tel , 8 4 8 A . 2 d at 82 7 . In T w om bl y , the Supr eme C our thel d thatgener al al l egat i ons of cons pi r acyar e not suffici ent. T w om bly , 55 0 U . S . at55 5. T he co m plai nt m ustprovide “eno ug h fac tt o rai se a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on thatdi s coveryw i l l r evea l evi dence of i l l egal agr eement . ” I d. at 556. “[A ] n al l egat i on of par al l el conductand a ba r e as s ert i on of cons pi r acyw i l l not6

s u f f i c e . ” I d . F u r th e r m o r e , “ [ w ] i th o u tm o r e , p a r a l l e l c o n d u c td o e s n o ts u g g e s tc o n s p i r a c y, a n d a c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n o f a g re e m e n t at s o m e u n id e n tifie d p o in t d o e s n o t su p p lyf a c ts a d e q u a te to s h o w ille g a lity.” Id . a t 5 5 6 -5 7 . A s in T w o m b ly , S t. C lair’ s c o n sp ira c yc laim s f a il b e c a u se h e to o h a s a lleg e d o n ly par al l el conductand gr os s s pecul at i on. H i s cons pi r acycl ai m s r el yon the par al l el fee structures of several com peti ng ban ks and the assert i on that the indi vidual defe nd ants , off i cers of C i t i zens B ank , each h ad p ri or w ork exp eri ence a totherban ks. T hese acc us at i ons ar e w hol l yi nadequa t e. St . C l ai ral s o al l eges thatthe D efe ndant s and the co- cons pi r i ng banks m onopol i ze th e m a rk e t as a n o lig o p o ly , il leg a llyc o n tro l 1 0 0 p e rc e n t o f th e m a rk e t sh a re , an d u se th is a d v a n tag e to se t o v e rd ra f t f e e s a rtific iallyh ig h . A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyn o ted , to sta te a c laim o f

m o n o p o liza tio n in c o n tra v e n tio n o f S e c tio n 2 o f

th e S h e rm a n A c t an d its anal og, the N ew J er s eyA nt i trus tA ct§ 56: 9- 4, a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege:

( 1) the pos s es s i on of m onopol ypow eri n the r el evantm arket and ( 2) the w i l l ful acqui s i t i on orm ai nt enanc e of thatpow eras di s t i ngui s hed fr om gr ow th ordevel opm entas a cons equenc e o f a su p e rio r p ro d u c t, bu sin e ss a c u m e n , o r h isto ric a c c id e n t. C r os s r oads C ogener at i on C orp. v. O r ange & R ockl and U t i l s . , I nc. , 159 F. 3d 129, 141 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (qu o tat ion s o m itted); see also P atel, 8 4 8 A . 2 d at 82 9 -30 . T h e S u p rem e C o u rt has defi ned monopol ypow eras the pow ert o “contr ol pr i ces orexcl ude compet i t i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. E . I . du Pontde N emours & C o. , 351 U . S. 377, 392 ( 1956) . “O ther fac t or s t o be cons i der ed i ncl ude the s tr ength of compet i t i on, pr obabl e deve l opm entof the7

in d u stry , the b a rrie rs to e n try , the n a tu re o f th e a n ti-co m p e tit iv e c o n d u c t, an d th e e las ticity of cons um erdemand. ” B arrL abs . , I nc. v. A bbotL abs . , 978 F. 2d 98, 112 ( 3d C i r . 1992) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned, and w e agr ee, thatSt . C l ai rhas fai l ed t o al l ege the per cent age of

the r el evantm arketcontr ol l ed byD efe ndant s orpl ead a nyfac t s r egar di ng th e stre n g th o f

c o m p e tit io n , p ro b a b le d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e in d u stry , the n a tu re o f th e a n tic o m p e tit iv e c o n d u c t, or th e e las ticityo f c o n su m e r d e m a n d . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id a c k n o w led g e th a t S t. C lair s tate d th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts “ e f

f e c tiv e lyb a rric a d e d e n tryin to the mar ket , ” butnot ed thatthe pl eadi ng w as t oo concl us oryt o be s uffi ci entunder T w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U .S . at 5 5 4 (“ W h ile a c o m p lain t atta c k e d b ya R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o tio n to di s m i s s does notneed de t ai l ed fa ctual al l egat i ons , a pl ai nt i ff’ s obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de the

‘ gr ounds ’ of hi s ‘ ent i t l e[ment ] t o r el i ef’ r equi r es m or e than l abel s and conc l us i ons , and a form ul ai c r eci t at i on of the el ement s of a c aus e of a ct i on w i l l notdo. ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itte d ). I ns t ead of

addr es s i ng the fa ct or s above, St . C l ai rci t ed C i t i zens B ank’ s over dr aft f e e in c re a se o f

$ 1 8 in 2 0 0 7 a s e v id e n c e o f D e f e n d a n ts’ p o w e r o v e r th e m a rk e t, emphasi zed Ci t i zens Fi nanci al G r oup’ s $159 bi l l i on i n as s et s , decl ar ed thati tw as one of the “10 l ar ges tcomm er ci al bank hol di ng compani es i n the U ni t ed St at es , ” and of fer ed S w if t & C o . v . U n ited S tate s, 1 9 6 U .S . 3 7 5 (1 9 0 5 ), as su p p o rtin g a u th o rity . S w if t, how ever , w as deci ded i n anotherer a of a nt i trus tl aw and pl eadi ng pr act i ce. Fur therm or e,8

the Sw i ftpl ai nt i ff pr ovi ded gr eatdet ai l r egar di ng the form al pr i ce f i xi ng agr eement betw een the cons pi r at or s and out l i ned the agr eement ’ s i nt entand ef fec tof el i m i nat i ng compet i t i on. T hi s has notbeen s uffi ci ent l ypl eade d her e and the al l egat i ons i n the c o mp l a i n ta r e n o ts u f

f i c i e n tt o s u p p o r ta mo n o p o l i z a t i o n c l a i m W e tu r n n o w t o S t . Cl a i r ’ s RI CO c l a i ms . To p r o p e r l ya s s e r ta c i v i l RI CO c l a i m a pl ai nt i ff musts how “( 1) conduct( 2) of an e nt erpr i s e ( 3) thr ough a patt ern ( 4) of r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty . ” W ar den v. M cLel l and, 288 F. 3d 105, 114 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . Sect i on 1961( 1) of R I C O defi nes “r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty ” byl i s t i ng c ri m in a l a c tiv itie s th a t c o n s titu te p re d ic a te a c ts u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . T h e lis t is e x h a u s tiv e . A nnul l i v. Pani kkar , 200 F. 3d 189, 200 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , overrul ed on othergr ounds by R o tel la v. W o o d , 5 2 8 U . S . 5 4 9 (20 0 0 ). F a ilu re to p lea d a p a ttern o f p re d ica te a c ts is f

a tal to a R IC O c laim . Id . S t. C lair al l eged f ourpr edi cat e ac t s : ( 1) ant i trus tvi ol at i ons ; ( 2) bank fr aud; ( 3) m ai l fr aud; and e x to rtio n in v io latio n o f th e H o b b s A c t, 18 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 . W e c o n sid e r e a c h o f S t. C l ai r ’ s pr offe r ed “pr edi cat e ac t s . ” A tthe out s et , w e not e thatant i trus tvi ol at i ons ar e not on the l i s tof pr edi cat e ac t s i n 18. U . S. C . § 1961( 1) , and thus , cannotbe the bas i s of a R IC O cl ai m . W e al so no t e t hat w hil e ban k fraud i s l i st ed as on e of the predi cat e act s, bank fr aud occ ur s w hen s om eone de fr auds the bank, notvi ce ve r s a. See U ni t ed St at es v. K hor ozi an, 333 F. 3d 498, 503 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . St . C l ai r ’ s acc us at i ons ther efor e do not cons t i tut e al l egat i ons of bank f r aud, beca us e he a l l eges the bank i s the perpetr at orof the9

f r a u d n o tth e v i c t i m. N ext , St . C l ai rcl ai m s thatthe D efe ndant s comm i t t ed mai l fr aud bys endi ng over dr aftnot i ces l at erthan theys entothertypes of m ai l , know i ng thatl at e fe es acc rue on a dai l ybas i s . T o cons t i tut e mai l fr aud, one mustal l ege the pos t al s y s t em’s us e i n a s cheme t o defr aud thr ough m i s r epr es ent at i on. U ni t ed St at es v. B offa , 688 F. 2d 919, 925 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . “W hi l e i nnocentm ai l i ngs . . . m ays uppl ythe nec es s arycomm uni cat i on el ementforthes e cr i m i nal offe ns es , ther e mustbe s om e s or tof fr audul ent m isr ep rese n tat ion s o r om issi o n s rea so n ab lyca lculated to d ec eive p erso n s o f o rdin ary prudence and compr ehens i on. ” C ami ol o v. St at e Farm Fi r e & C as . C o. , 334 F. 3d 345, 3 6 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . L i k e th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , we concl ude thatSt . C l ai rhas notm etthi s bur den as w e ca nnotfi nd anyal l egat i ons i n the amended compl ai ntthatthe D efe ndant s m i s r epr es ent ed anydet ai l s r egar di ng the o v e rd ra f t f e e s in a n yo f

th e c o m m u n ic a tio n s m a ile d to h im . St . C l ai rfi nal l ycl ai m s the R I C O A cti s tr i gger ed bec aus e D efe ndant s us ed e x to rt io n to c o lle c t th e o v e rd ra f t c h a rg e s in v io la tio n o f th e H o b b s A c t, 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 . Subse ct i on ( b) ( 2) of the H obbs A ctdefi nes ext or t i on as “the obt ai ni ng of pr opertyfr om another , w i th hi s cons ent , i nduced byw r ongful us e of a ctual orthr eat ened f or ce, vi ol ence , orfea r , orundercol orof off i ci al r i ght . ” I n or dert o pl ead e xt or t i on undercol orof off i ci al r i ght , one mustal l ege thatthe D efe ndantm i s us ed off i ci al governm entpow eror th re a te n e d to m is u s e th a t p o w e r i n o rd e r t o o b ta in s o m e th in g o f v a lu e f ro m th e v ic tim .10

U n it ed S tat es v . M az ze i, 5 2 1 F . 2 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 5 ). T h e D ef en d an ts, h o w ev er, are n o t sta te a c to rs. T h e ya re n o t li ste d a s f in a n c ial in stitu tio n s in 3 1 U .S .C § 9 1 0 1 , w h ich S t. C l ai rci t es t o us , as governm entcorpor at i ons orm i xed- ow ner s hi p G overnm ent C o rp o ra tio n s . W e d o n o t s e e h o w S t. C la ir ’s a c c u s a tio n s s u p p o rt a v ia b le e x to rt io n c la im . A s a c o n s e q u e n c e , w e d o n o t s e e a n yb a s is f o r S t. C la ir ’s R IC O c la im s . F in a lly , w e se e n o b a sis to c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in re f u sin g S t. C l ai rl eave t o amend hi s compl ai nta s econd t i m e. A l though R ul e 15( a) ( 2) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e s t at es that“[t ] he courts houl d fr eel ygi ve l eave [t o amend t he compl ai nt ] w hen j us t i ce s o r equi r es , ” a di s tr i ctcourtm aydenya r eques tt o amend i f the am en d m en t w o u ld b e f

u ti le. L ak e v . A rno ld, 23 2 F . 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 7 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). In c o n c lu d in g th a t f

u rth e r a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f u til e , the D istric t C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t S t. C l ai rfi l ed 123 page s of pl eadi ngs , a ca s e s t at ement , and a br i ef i n oppos i t i on t o the m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng thatt he d e f ic ie n c ie s in S t. C la ir ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t c o u ld n o t b e c u re d b ya m e n d m e n t. I V. In lig h t o f

th e f o re g o in g , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.