Background
Orr, proceeding pro se, sued over a car purchase financed through Kia Finance, asserting seventeen claims against the dealership and finance company, including claims under the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Credit Billing Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and breach of contract. After two amended complaints, the defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and Orr moved to file a third amended complaint. The district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, dismissed the breach of contract claim without prejudice, and denied leave to amend as futile.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed de novo the denial of leave to amend on futility grounds. It said Orr had abandoned any challenge to the district court’s merits analysis because her appellate briefing stated she did not seek reversal of all dismissals and did not reargue the dismissed matters. On futility, the court held the proposed third amended complaint was substantively identical to the second amended complaint, did not add new claims, repeated arguments already presented, and relied almost entirely on exhibits already in the record. The one new exhibit related to the contract claim that had been dismissed without prejudice. The court also declined to consider new theories Orr conceded she had not raised in the district court. As to the contract claim, the court explained there was no inconsistency in dismissing that claim without prejudice because it sounded in state law and the district court had discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, while dismissal with prejudice was proper for the federal claims the district court resolved on the merits.
Because the third amended complaint was a retread of the second, and because Orr does not contest that the district court properly dismissed her second amended complaint, her motion to amend was futile.
Slip op. at 4
What it means going forward
The decision leaves intact the dismissal with prejudice of Orr’s federal claims and confirms that a plaintiff cannot obtain another amendment by repackaging the same allegations. It also underscores that when federal claims are gone, a district court may dismiss a remaining state-law contract claim without prejudice rather than decide it on the merits.