## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay1,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT JA M E S B A R F IE L D A N D C H R IS BA RF I E L D, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 06- 3087 C O M M E R C E B A N K , N .A .,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. C. NO . 0 5 - CV- 2 2 1 8 - M LB) L aw r ence W . W i l l i amson, J r . , Shor es , W i l l i amson and O haebos i m , L L C , W i chi t a, K ansas for Plai nti ffs-A pp el l ants . Ch a r l e s W . Ge r ma n a n d J o s e l yn Ve r s c h e l d e n , Ro u s e He n d r i c k s Ge r ma n M a yP C, K ans as C i ty , M i s s our i forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee. B efo re KELLY , M c CO NNELL , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge. C hr i s B ar fi el d, an A fr i can- A m er i can man, ent er ed a Com m er ce Bank br anch i n W i chi t a, K ans as , and r eques t ed cha nge fora $50 bi l l . H e w as r efus ed c h a n g e o n th e g ro u n d th a t h e w a s n o t an a c c o u n t-h o ld e r. T h e n e x t d a y , C h ris-2-

B ar fi el d’ s father , J ames Bar fi el d, as ked a w hi t e fr i end, J ohn Pol s on, t o m ake the s ame r eques tfr om t he bank. M r . Pol s on w as gi ven cha nge, and the t el l ernever as ked w hetherhe hel d an ac countw i th the bank. A few m i nut es l at er , J ames B ar fi el d ent er ed the bank, as ked forchange fora $100 bi l l , and w as t ol d thathe w o u ld n o t b e g iv e n c h a n g e u n le s s h e w a s a n a c c o u n t- h o ld e r. Ja m e s B a rfield th e n e n listed th e h e lp o f a w h ite n e w s re p o rte r a n d h is A fri can-A m eri can co l l eagu e. T he tw o m en, separat el y , vis i t ed the ban k to r equ est ch an g e. T h e A frican -A m erican m an w as a sk ed w h ethe r he w as a n ac co u n t ho lder, a n d th e w h ite m a n w a s n o t. T he B ar fi el ds fi l ed s ui tunder42 U . S. C . § 1981, al l egi ng r aci al d isc rim in a tio n in th e im p a irm e n t o f th e a b ili tyto c o n tra c t. T h e B a n k m o v e d to di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . W hi l e thatm ot i on w as pendi ng, the tw o s i des engage d i n ext ended medi at i on and negot i at i on, w hi ch ul t i m at el yfai l ed. D ur i ng th a t p e rio d , the B a rfield s m o v e d fo r c las s c e rtific a tio n a n d to a m e n d th e ir compl ai ntt o i ncl ude a c l ai m underT i t l e V I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964. T he ju d g e d e n ied b o th p lain tiffs’ m o tio n s a n d g ra n ted th e d e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n to di s m i s s . T he B ar fi el ds t i m el yappea l ed. I. O rig in a llye n a c ted in th e w a k e o f th e C iv il W a r, S e c tio n 1 9 8 1 (a ) sta tes : Al l p e r s o n s wi th i n th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s s h a l l h a v e th e s a me r i ghti n everySt at e and Terr i t or yt o m a ke a n de n fo rc e c o n tra c ts , t o s ue, be part i es , gi ve evi dence , and t o the ful l and equa l benef i tof al l l aw s and-3-

p ro c e e d in g s fo r th e se c u rityo f p e rso n s a n d p ro p e rtya s is e njo y e d b yw h ite ci t i zens, and shal l be subj ectt o li ke p un i shm ent, pains, pen al t i es, t axes, lic e n s e s , a n d e x a c tio n s o f e v e ry k in d , a n d n o o th e r. 42 U . S. C . § 1981( a) ( emphasi s added) . A s partof the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1991, C ongr es s added pa r tb t o the s t atut e: “Forpurpos es of thi s s ect i on, the t erm ‘ m ake and enfor ce c ontr act s ’ i ncl udes the maki ng, per form ance , m odi fi cat i on, and t erm i nat i on of contr act s , and the enj oym entof al l benef i t s , pr i vi l eges , t erm s , and condi t i ons of the contr actual r el at i ons hi p. ” Id. § 1 9 8 1 (b ). T h e p u rp o se o f p a rt b w as t o expand the s t atut e t o encompas s “al l phas es and i nci dent s of the contr actual r el at i ons hi p. ” R i vers v. R oadw ay Expre s s , Inc. , 511 U . S. 298, 302, 3 0 8 (1 9 9 4 ). S ect i on 19 81 cl ai m s ar e subjectt o a thr ee-partt est . T he clai m ant m ust demonstr at e: “( 1) t hatt he pl ai nt i ff i s a mem berof a pr ot ect ed cl as s ; ( 2) thatthe defe ndanthad the i nt entt o di s cr i m i nat e on the bas i s of r ace ; and ( 3) thatthe di s cr i m i nat i on i nt er fer ed w i th a pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyas defi ned i n § 1981. ” Hampt on v. D i l lar d D ep’ tSt or es , Inc. , 247 F. 3d 1091, 1102 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . O nl ythe thi r d pr ong i s ati s s ue her e. A ll co u rts to h a v e a d d re ss e d th e iss u e h a v e h e ld th a t a c u sto m e r’s o ffe r to do bus i nes s i n a r et ai l s ett i ng qual i fi es as a “pha s e[] and i nci dent [] of the contr actual r el at i ons hi p” under§ 1981. I n C hr is t i an v. Wal - Mar tSt or es , Inc. , 252 F. 3d 862 ( 6th C i r . 2001) , the Si xth C i r cui tuphel d a § 1981 cl ai m w her e an-4-

A fr i can- A m er i can c us t om er , r eadyt o m ake a pur chas e, w as acc us ed of s hopl i ft i ng a n d re m o v e d f

ro m th e sto re : w e h a v e n o tro u b le c o n c lu d in g th a t [ th e a p p e llan t] m a d e h e rse lf a v a ilab le t o ent eri nt o a contr actual r el at i ons hi p fors ervi ces or di nar i l ypr ovi ded by W a l-M a rt: the re c o rd re flec ts th a t sh e h a d se lec ted m e rc h a n d ise to p u rc h a se , h a d th e m e a n s to c o m p lete th e tra n sa c tio n , an d w o u ld , in fa c t, h a v e c o m p le te d h e r p u rc h a s e h a d s h e n o t b e e n a s k e d to le a v e th e s to re . Id. at874. T he Fi fth C i r cui thas w r i t t en that“w hen a mer chantdeni es s ervi ce or o u trig h t re f

u se s to e n g a g e in b u sin e ss w ith a c o n su m e r a ttem p tin g to c o n tra c t w ith the mer chant , thati s a vi ol at i on of § 1981. ” C a u sey v . Se w e ll C a d illa c -C h e v ro let, Inc. , 3 9 4 F .3 d 2 8 5 , 2 9 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). S ee a lso G ree n v. D il lard ’s , ___ F. 3d

___, 2007 W L 1012941, *5 ( 8th C i r . A pr . 5, 2007) ( “U nder§ 1981 contr act form at i on begi ns and the s t atut orypr ot ect i ons ar e tr i gger ed once a cus t om erhas m ad e so m e tan g ible att em p t t o co n tr ac t . . . . ” (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)); Watki ns v. Lovl ey D ev. , Inc. , N o. C i v. 04- 211- B - H , 2005 W L 2746664 ( D . M e. O ct . 24, 2005) ( fi ndi ng a val i d § 1981 cl ai m w hen a c us t om eratt empt ed t o m ake a p u rc h a se a t D u n k in D o n u ts b u t w a s re f u se d se rv ice ); Henders on v. JewelFood St or es , Inc. , N o. 96C 3666, 1996 W L 617165 ( N . D . I l l . O ct . 23, 1996) ( fi ndi ng a v ali d § 1 9 8 1 claim w h en a d efen d an t had init iat ed b u t no t com p let ed a p u rch ase ); Shen v. A &P Food St or es , N o. 93C V 1184( FB ) , 1995 W L 728416 ( E . D . N . Y . N ov. 2 1 , 1 9 9 5 ) (fin d in g a v a lid § 1 9 8 1 c laim a f ter C h in e se c u sto m e rs a ttem p ted to p u rc h a se a p p le ju ice a n d w e re re f u se d ); Was hi ngt on v. D ut y Free Shoppers , Ltd. , 710 F. Supp. 1288, 1289- 90 ( N . D . C al . 1988) ( fi ndi ng a val i d § 1981 cl ai m w hen-5-

A fr i can- A m er i can c us t om er s w er e s t opped af t erent er i ng a duty - fr ee s hop and ask ed fo r th eir pa ssp o rt s b u t w h it e c u stom ers w ere n o t) . T he ques t i on, then, i s w hethert he B ar fi el ds ’ pr opos al t o excha nge money ata bank i s a contr actoffe ri n t he s ame w ayas an offert o pur chas e doughnut s or a p p le ju ice . T h e c laim m a d e b yth e a p p e llee s, a n d a c c e p ted b yth e d istric t co u rt, i s thatthe B ar fi el ds ’ pr opos ed exc hange w as nota contr actbeca us e i ti nvol ved no cons i der at i on: “The bank w oul d nothave r ece i ved anybenef i tori ncurr ed a detr i m enti f i thad agr eed t o change t he B ar fi el ds ’ bi l l s . ” A pp. at56. T hat r eas oni ng, how ever , depart s i n s ever al s i gni fi cantw ay s fr om ourunder s t andi ng of c o n tr a c tl a w. T o d e te rm in e th e c o n to u rs o f a c o n tr a c t, w e lo o k to s ta te c o m m o n la w . Hampt on , 2 4 7 F . 3 d a t1 1 0 4 ; 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 8 ( a ) . Un d e rKa n s a s l a w: A contr actm us tbe s uppor t ed bycons i der at i on i n or dert o be enfor cea bl e. Stat e ex r el . Ludw i ck v . B r yant , 6 9 7 P .2 d 8 5 8 (1 9 8 5 ); Mi t chel lv. Mi l l er , 8 P. 3d 26 ( 2000) . ‘ C ons i der at i on i s defi ned as s om e r i ght , i nt er es t , pr ofi t , or benef i tacc rui ng t o one party , ors om e forbear ance , detr i m ent , l os s , or r es pons i bi l i ty , gi ven, s uffe r ed, orunder t aken byt he other . ’ 17A A m . J ur . 2d, C ontr act s § 113, p. 129. A pr om i s e i s w i thoutcons i der at i on w hen the pr om i s e i s gi ven byone partyt o anotherw i thoutanythi ng bei ng bar gai ned forand gi ven i n excha nge fori t . 2 C orbi n on C ontr act s § 5. 20 ( r ev. e d .1 9 9 5 ). Va rn ey B u s. S e rv s., In c . v. P o ttro ff , 5 9 P .3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 1 4 (K a n . 2 0 0 2 ). See a lso Fr ench v . Fr ench , 1 6 7 P .2 d 3 0 5 , 3 3 1 (K a n . 1 9 4 6 ) (n o tin g th a t “in c o n v e n ien c e to the p rom isee” is va li d co n side rati o n ).-6-

I n the mosts tr ai ght forw ar d s ens e, the tr ans act i on pr opos ed bythe B ar fi el ds w as a contr actof exc hange: theyw oul d gi ve up s om ethi ng of val ue ( a l ar ged en o m ination b il l) in ex ch an g e fo r som ethin g theyv alue d m o re (sm all erd e n o m i n a t i o n b i l l s ) . I ti s h a r d t o s e e w h y th i s i s n o ta c o n tr a c t . I f tw o b o ys e x c h a n g e m a rb les , the ir tra n sa c tio n is a c o n tra c t, ev e n if it i s h a rd fo r o u tsid e rs to fa th o m w h ye ith e r p re fe rre d th e o n e o r th e o th e r. C o n sid e ra tio n d o e s n o t n e e d to h a v e a q u a n tifia b le fin a n c ial v a lu e : [T]he l egal s uffi ci encyof a c ons i der at i on fora pr om i s e [doe s not ] depend u p o n th e c o m p a ra tiv e e c o n o m ic v a lu e o f th e c o n sid e ra tio n a n d o f w h a t is pr om i s ed i n r eturn, forthe part i es ar e dee m ed t o be the bes tj udges of the bar gai ns ent er ed i nt o. . . . W her e a pa r tycontr act s fort he per form ance of a n a c t w h ich w ill a ffo rd h im p lea su re , g ra tifyh is a m b iti o n , p lea se h is fa n c y , o r e x p re ss h is a p p re c iatio n o f a se rv ice a n o th e r h a s re n d e re d h im , h is e s tim a te o f

v a lu e m u s t b e le f

t u n d is tu rb e d . . . . In re Sh irk ’s E sta te , 3 5 0 P . 2 d 1 , 1 0 (K an . 1 9 6 0 ). T he B ank, how ever , ar gues t hatt he pr opos ed exc hange w as nota contr act b e c a u s e it r e c e iv e d n o re m u n e ra tio n fo r p e rfo rm in g th e s e rv ic e o f b ill e x c h a n g e . I n otherw or ds , r atherthan vi ew the tr ans act i on as an exc hange of one thi ng for another , the B ank ur ges us t o t r eatt he tr ans act i on as a gr atui t ous s ervi ce pr ovi ded b yth e B a n k , fo r n o c o n sid e ra tio n . W e c a n n o t re g a rd th e B a n k ’s p ro v isio n o f b ill excha nge s ervi ces as “gr atui t ous ” i n anyl egal s ens e. Pr ofi t - m aki ng es t abl i s hm ent s oft en offert o engage i n tr ans act i ons w i th no i m m edi at e gai n, or even a ta l os s , as a means of i nduci ng cus t om er s t o engage i n othert r ans act i ons thatar e more l ucr at i ve; s uch offer s m aynonethel es s be contr actual , and theydo-7-

n o t la c k c o n s id e ra tio n . See Idb e is v . Wi c h i ta Su rg i c a lS p e c i a l is ts , P. A. , 112 P. 3d 81, 90 ( K an. 2005) ( hol di ng thatunquant i fi abl e cons i der at i on, s uch as an e m p lo y e e ’s g o o d w ill a n d p ro fe s s io n a l c o n ta c ts , is a d e q u a te to s u s ta in a c o n tr a c t) . I f, as i s al l eged i n the compl ai nt , the B ank effec t i vel yext ends bi l l excha nge se rv ice s to p e rso n s o f o n e ra c e a n d n o t th e o th e r, th a t is su fficie n t to c o m e w ith in the ambi tof § 1981. A p p e llee re lies h e a v ily o n a p a rt o f th is C o u rt’s h o ld in g in Hampt on v. D i l lar d D epar tm entSt or es , Inc . , 24 7 F . 3d 10 91 (10t h C i r. 20 01 ). T hat cas e in v o lv e d tw o in d iv id u a ls— a n a u n t an d a n iec e — sh o p p in g to g e th e r a t a d e p a rt m e n t s to re . Id . a t 1 0 9 9 . A f te r t h e a u n t, M s . H a m p to n , m a d e a p u rc h a s e , a s to re c le rk o ffe re d e a c h o f th e tw o w o m e n a c o u p o n fo r a f re e f ra g ra n c e s a m p le . Id. at1100. T he w om en w entt o the fr agr ance count erand w er e i n the pr oces s of r edee m i ng t hei rcoupons w hen theyw er e s t opped bya s ecur i tyguar d, w ho s u s p e c te d th e m o f

s h o p lif tin g . Id. T he guar d s ear ched M s . H ampt on’ s bag and fo u n d n o sto len m e rc h a n d ise ; th e w o m e n , af ter v e rb a llye x p re ss in g th e ir di s pl eas ur e, l eftthe s t or e w i thoutr enew i ng thei ratt empt s t o obt ai n fr agr ance s a m p le s . Id. T heybr oughts ui ti n fede r al courtal l egi ng i nt er fer ence w i th contr actual r i ght s under§ 1981. A l though t he di s tr i ctcourtal l ow ed M s . H ampt on’ s § 1981 claim to p roc ee d to the juryan d this C o u rtu p h eld th e juryv erd ictin h er fav o r, the d istri ct co u rtd ism issed the c lai m o f h er n iece , M s. C o o p er, on su m m ary-8-

j udgm ent , and thi s C our taff i r m ed. A ppel l ee s ugges t s thatouraff i r m ance of s um m aryj udgm entagai ns tM s . C oopers t ands forthe br oad pr opos i t i on t hat gr atui t ous offe r s do notcons t i tut e contr act s w i thi n the meani ng of Sect i on 1981, and argues t hat because t he B ank ’s service of providi ng chan ge w as gratuit ou s, a n yra c ial d isc rim in a tio n w ith re sp e c t to th a t se rv ice w o u ld fa ll o u tsid e th e a m b it o f th e s ta tu te . A pp el l ee reads Hampt on to o b ro a d ly. Hampt on di d notes t abl i s h any s w e e p in g lim ita tio n s o n th e c o v e ra g e o f S e c tio n 1 9 8 1 . R a th e r, Hampt on w as bas ed on a s peci fi c fi ndi ng thatthe coupon i n ques t i on i n thatcas e w as a contr act b e n e fit v a lid o n ly u p o n p u rc h a s e o f m e rc h a n d is e . Id . at11 04 -05. B ecause M s. C o o p e r’s a u n t m a d e a p u rc h a se , “s h e c o m p lete d th e in v ited p e rfo rm a n c e in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e ter m s o f th e o ffe r” a n d th u s h a d a v a lid c o n tra c tu a l rig h t to th e c o u p o n a n d its a tte n d a n t b e n e fits . Idat1104. I n contr as t , M s . C oopernever “ma[de] oratt empt [ed] t o m ake a pur chas e atD i l l ar d’ s , ” id . at1118, and thus s he h a d n o ri g h t to th e c o n tr a c tu a l b e n e fit. Hampt on th u s s tan d s fo r th e se n sib le p r o p o s i t i o n th a ta c u s t o me rwh o fa i l s t o c o mp l ywi th a s t o r e ’ s c o n tr a c tu a l t e r ms cannotthen cl ai m thats ubs equentconductbythe s t or e’ s empl oy ees i nt er fer ed w ith h e r c o n tr a c tu a l r ig h t. I ns t ead of

hol di ng, as the B ank as s er t s , t hatoffe r s of fr ee mer chandi s e ca n n e v e r c o n s titu te c o n tr a c ts u n d e r § 1 9 8 1 , Hampt on r es erves t hatques t i on for a n o th e r d a y . Id. a t 1 1 0 5 . H o w e v e r, it s c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e iss u e in d icta su p p o rts-9-

the conc l us i on w e come t o t oday . I n des cr i bi ng t he coupon, the Hampt on C o u rt n o ted th a t a r e tail e sta b lish m e n t’s o ffe r o f a f re e se rv ice o r sa m p le in fa c t co u ld cons t i tut e a c ontr actw i thi n the meani ng of Sect i on 1981. T he es t abl i s hm ent r ece i ves a bene fi tfr om s uch offer s beca us e “t o s ampl e thos e pr oduct s , the cus t om erw oul d tr aver s e the s t or e, perhaps ey ei ng otherm er chandi s e for pur chas e. ” Id . a t 1 1 0 5 . W e ther efor e r ever s e the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of the B ar fi el d’ s Sect i on 1 9 8 1 c l a i m. II. T he B ar fi el ds m oved t o amend t hei rcompl ai nton N ovember5, 2005, s eeki ng t o add cl as s al l egat i ons . T he fe der al rul es pr ovi de thatl eave t o amend a c o m p la in t “ s h a ll b e f

re e ly g iv e n w h e n ju s tic e s o re q u ir e s .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a ). W e re v ie w a d e n ia l o f le a v e to a m e n d a c o m p la in t fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Fom an v . D a v is , 3 7 1 U . S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (19 6 2 ). U nli ke the ori ginal com plai nt, w hich con t ai ned speci fi c factual al l egati on s, the new al l egat i ons i ncl uded onl ygener al i zed c oncl us i ons , al l egi ng thatthe bank had: a. D en[i ed] qual i fi ed A fr i can- A m er i cans t he opportuni tyt o open che cki ng

accou nts ; b . D en [ied ] qu ali fied A frican -A m erican s the o p p o rtu n ityto o p en sav ing ’s [si c] accoun t s; c. D en[ied] qual i fi ed A fri can-A m eri cans ho m e l oan s; d. D en[ied] qual i fi ed A fri can-A m eri cans sm al l bu si ness l oan s;-10-

e. R efus [ed] t o cas h chec ks dr aw n on C om m er ce Bank acc ount s pr es ent ed byA fri can-A m eri cans; f. R efus[ed ] t o ex chan ging [si c] currencyof A fri can-A m eri cans; g. R efus[ed ] t o cash c ashi er’ s check s pres ented byA fri can-A m eri cans; and h. D en[ied] qual i fi ed A fri can-A m eri cans pe rs on al l oan s. A pp. at26. T he di s tr i ctcourtnot ed that“[t ] he B ar fi el ds have not. . . as s er t ed anyactual fac t s t o s uppor tt hes e al l egat i ons , s uch as the i dent i t i es of the i ndi vi dual s w ho w er e deni ed s ervi ces , the dat es on w hi ch thes e eve nt s occurr ed, et c. Fur ther , t he pl eadi ng cont ai ns no al l egat i ons thatthe B ar fi el ds w er e deni ed anyof thes e addi t i onal s ervi ces . ” Id . at59. T h e F ed era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re req u ir e a p lai n ti ff to p rov ide “ a sh o rt and pl ai n s t at ementof the cl ai m s how i ng thatthe pl eade ri s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” F e d . R . C iv . P . 8 (a )(2 ). T h is s tan d a rd , k n o w n a s “ n o tice p lea d in g ,” is in ten d e d to “gi ve the defendantfai rnot i ce of w hatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m i s and the gr ounds upon w hi ch i tr es t s . ” C onl ey v . G i bs on , 3 5 5 U. S . 4 1 , 4 7 ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Al th o u g h we

“ d o n o t re q u ire a c laim a n t to se t o u t in d e tail th e fa c ts u p o n w h ich h e b a se s h is cl ai m , ” id ., w e d o re q u ire e n o u g h sp e c ificityfo r th e d e fe n d a n t to b e a b le to resp o n d to the all eg ati o n s. A s Ju d g e F ri en d lyh as n o ted, R u le 8 re q u ir es m o re than a statem en t th at th e d efen d an t has v iolated th e statute in q u esti o n : “[a ] m ere al l egat i on t hatdefe ndant s vi ol at ed the ant i trus tl aw s as t o a part i cul arpl ai nt i ff and comm odi ty [, orthat ] a defendantm ade a n undes cr i bed contr actw i th the pl ai nt i ff a nd br eac hed i t , orthata defendantow ns a ca rand i nj ur ed pl ai nt i ff by-11-

d ri v in g it n e g lig e n tly” is n o t s u ffic ie n t to m e e t th e n o tic e p le a d in g re q u ir e m e n ts . K l ebanow v. N. Y. P r oduce Exch. , 3 4 4 F .2 d 2 9 4 , 2 9 9 (2 d C ir . 1 9 6 5 ). B ecause the pl ai nti ffs’ pr op osed am end ed clai m “furnis hes no tthe sl i gh t est c lu e a s to w h a t c o n d u c t b yth e d e fe n d a n ts is c la im e d to ” v io la te fe d e ra l la w , id ., it le a v e s d e fe n d a n ts “ w ith o u t fa irn o tic e a s to th e g ro u n d s u p o n w h ic h p la in tiffs ’ . . . a lle g a tio n re s ts a n d . . . in n o p o s itio n to p ro d u c e a re s p o n s iv e p le a d in g ,” Mou ntai n Vi ew P ha rm acy v. Ab bo t tL ab s. , 6 3 0 F .2 d 1 3 8 3 , 1 3 8 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). A s the amendm entm akes outno val i d new compl ai nt , w e hol d thatthe di s tr i ct courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng l eave t o amend. III . W e R EV ER SE the d i stri ctcou rt ’s rul i ng on t he m oti on t o d i sm i ss, AF F I RM t he deni al of perm i s s i on t o amend t he compl ai nt , and RE M AND for fur therpr ocee di ngs i n acc or dance w i th thi s opi ni on.