Opinion
21-16190
09-27-2022
WILLIAM E. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; NEXGEN BUILDERS, INC.; FRED HJELMESET; TRI COUNTIES BANK, Defendants-Appellees. and SAMUEL E. GOLDSTEIN; CHARLES SMITH; PAUL J. STEINER; STANLEY A. ZLOTOFF, Plaintiffs,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted September 14, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. 5:20-cv-06504-BLF Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
William E. Kennedy appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion to amend his complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Kennedy's motion to amend his complaint. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (holding leave to amend may be denied if there is "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment"); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that we have considered delays of eight and fifteen months to constitute "undue delay"); Jackson, 902 F.2d at 1387-88 (holding that an amendment prejudices the other party when the amendment would require additional discovery because it "advance[s] different legal theories and require[s] proof of different facts").
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).