James Long v. Ingenio, Inc., 690 F. App'x 497

James Long sued Yellowpages in a putative class action under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203 and 17535 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (and unspecified monetary relief not separately challenged on appeal).
At the time of suit and summary judgment, Long had no contractual relationship with Yellowpages and thus no present threat of future enforcement against him personally.
Yellowpages told the district court it would not seek to collect any payment obligations from Long and also failed to assert a timely compulsory counterclaim to collect from him.
The district court granted summary judgment for Yellowpages, dismissed the entire action (including claims for declaratory relief), and denied Long’s motion for leave to amend to add a second named plaintiff.
Long appealed the summary judgment and denial of leave to amend; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing for injunctive relief	Long argued he could pursue injunctive relief under state law claims	Yellowpages argued Long had no current contract and no real/immediate threat of injury	No standing; injunctive relief dismissed
Mootness of declaratory relief	Long sought declaratory relief; argued class issues could keep case alive	Yellowpages represented it would not seek to collect and cannot now due to missed compulsory counterclaim	Declaratory claim moot as to Long; dismissal proper
Transitory claim / class preservation	Long argued class members could still pursue class-wide relief so case should await class certification	Yellowpages argued claims were effectively mooted for Long and dismissal was proper before certification	Court held class-members who paid could pursue relief but Long’s individual claims were not transitory to keep the suit alive; dismissal affirmed
Denial of leave to amend	Long sought to add a second named plaintiff to cure standing and class issues	Yellowpages opposed; district court found undue delay and prejudice	Denial not an abuse of discretion; amendment properly denied

Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) (standing requires a real and immediate threat of irreparable injury for injunctive relief)
Semtek Int’l, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (claim-preclusion principles and finality effects)
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (U.S. 2016) (defendant’s offer to satisfy individual claim may not moot class claims)
Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) (transitory-claim doctrine and class certification timing)
Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (class-action and mootness considerations)
Emp’rs-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissing actions before class certification where appropriate)
Kuahulu v. Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau, 557 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1977) (procedural posture and class considerations)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (standards for leave to amend)
Parker v. Joe Lujan Enters., Inc., 848 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1988) (delay in seeking leave to amend weighs against amendment)
Schlacter-Jones v. Gen. Tel. of Cal., 936 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1991) (amendment during pending dispositive motion may be prejudicial)