The following excerpt is from Rector v. Capital One Bank (Usa), N.A., No. 2:14-cv-1019 GEB DAD PS (E.D. Cal. 2014):
Here, in light of the nature of plaintiff's allegations, the fact that plaintiff previously amended his complaint and the legal principles set forth above, the undersigned finds that granting further leave to amend would be futile in this case.5 See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int'l, 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (there is no need to prolong the litigation by permitting
Page 7
further amendment where the "basic flaw" in the underlying facts as alleged cannot be cured by amendment); Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Because any amendment would be futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further amendment.").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.