Kellman v. Spokeo, Inc., 3:21-cv-08976

Plaintiffs sued Spokeo, Inc., alleging it publicized plaintiffs’ personal information on its website and previously filed a First Amended Complaint; a class-certification motion is pending.
Plaintiffs move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that adds one new plaintiff (William Williams) and an Ohio subclass called the “Ohio Viewed‑Prior‑to‑Purchase Class.”
The proposed subclass narrows an existing Ohio “Published Teaser Profile” class to Ohio residents whose teaser profile was viewed immediately prior to purchasing a Spokeo subscription; no new causes of action are added.
Spokeo opposes amendment, arguing undue delay and prejudice (including additional discovery and a new damages subclass).
Court applied Rule 15(a) and the Foman factors, finding no bad faith or futility, that delay was not undue, and that any prejudice was limited and manageable (e.g., deposing Williams).
Court granted leave to file the SAC, ordered plaintiffs to file a clean copy, required the parties to meet and confer on a revised class-cert briefing schedule, and cautioned this is the last allowed amendment absent good cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs unduly delayed seeking to add Williams and subclass	Couldn’t have added Williams earlier because they only recently learned of view‑prior‑to‑purchase detection and Williams retained counsel shortly before the motion	Plaintiffs should have found a similarly situated client earlier; delay is undue	No undue delay; delay alone insufficient to deny leave
Whether amendment would unduly prejudice Spokeo	Adding Williams is efficient and any additional discovery is manageable; Spokeo would need the same discovery in separate suit	Amendment will delay litigation, require new discovery and depositions, and add a distinct damages subclass	Prejudice is limited; any scheduling impact outweighed by efficiency of including Williams now
Whether the amendment adds new legal claims (futility)	SAC does not add new causes of action—only an additional plaintiff and a narrower Ohio subclass	Argues the subclass implicates different statutory issues (compares CA and OH statutes)	No new claims added; amendment not futile because it narrows an existing Ohio class
Whether amendment shows bad faith or repeated failure to cure	Williams only recently retained counsel; plaintiffs did not previously have the facts to add him	Implies tactical timing to affect class certification schedule	No evidence of bad faith or repeated failures to cure; factor favors leave

C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (courts grant leave to amend with "extreme liberality")
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (sets factors for evaluating leave to amend under Rule 15)
Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice to the opposing party is the most important Foman factor; absent prejudice there is a presumption in favor of granting leave)
Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999) (undue delay alone is insufficient to deny amendment)