Opinion ID: 4391657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Leave to Amend Procedures

Text: The Funds first argue that the district court employed improper leave to amend procedures by indicating that, because the Funds’ motion for leave to amend came after the district court entered judgment, a “more exacting standard” should apply. Friedman II, 2018 WL 2021561, at -2. However, we need not decide whether the district court would have erred by applying such a standard because it did not do so. Instead of relying on a heightened leave to amend standard or the fact that it had previously given the Funds an opportunity to amend their complaint before ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court explicitly stated that, “whether or not” it applied a “more exacting standard,” the Funds’ “motion falls short, as their proposed amendments are futile.” Id. at ; see also id. at  (“[B]ecause Plaintiffs’ proposed Fourth Amended Complaint is futile, the Court will not grant leave to amend.”). Futility is a proper reason for denying a motion for leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).