Lynch v. Matterport, Inc

Background

A prior order had granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss. That order dismissed all claims against individual directors and the putative class claims brought against Matterport under the SAMP Act and Section 17500. It allowed Lynch to seek leave to amend within 18 days.

Lynch later sought leave to amend the dismissed claims, but the court denied that request because the amended claims against the individual directors remained inadequately individualized and the amended putative class claims under the SAMP Act and Section 17500 remained time-barred.

Current Motion

Lynch then sought leave to amend the operative pleading for different reasons. He proposed to remove claims he had voluntarily dismissed before the earlier dismissal order, reflect his current local counsel, conform the pleading to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of the dismissed claims, and refine the class definition. The proposed amended complaint still included the previously dismissed claims. Lynch said he was repleading those allegations only to preserve them for appeal and acknowledged that the claims had been dismissed.

The court applied the rule that leave to amend should generally be freely given absent undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, or undue prejudice. The court observed that Lynch might have made these changes in his earlier request, but accepted his explanation that he understood the earlier permission to amend as limited to the dismissed claims and deficiencies identified in the prior orders.

Ruling

Judge William Alsup granted Lynch's motion for leave to amend. The order expressly stated that the previously dismissed claims remained dismissed. The court also set the deadline for the class-certification motion as May 10, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. This order addressed permission to amend and did not decide the underlying merits of the claims.