John Faulkner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Adt Security Services, Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN FAULKNER, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-17124
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00968-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
John Faulkner appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his
complaint following a previous remand. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706
F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
FILED
DEC 11 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend as
futile. The newly alleged claim does not relate back to the original complaint
under Rule 15(c)(1)(B) because it arises out of a different series of phone calls than
the calls alleged in the original complaint. See Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
440 F.3d 1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a Privacy Act claim premised
on a different disclosure of personal information did not relate back to the original
complaint). As the district court correctly ruled, amendment would be futile
because the new claim would be barred by the statue of limitations. Deutsch v.
Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 718 n.20 (9th Cir. 2003) (amendment is futile if the
claim will be barred by the statute of limitations).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --