Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that leave to amend would be futile where plaintiff was granted leave to amend once before and the amended complaint contained the same deficiencies as the 28 prior complaint
• holding that although plaintiffs alleged that the banks actively participated “in an individual capacity in the scheme to fix the interchange fee or the merchant discount fee, this was nothing more than a conclusory statement.”
• concluding that amendment would be futile where plaintiffs already filed an amended 4 complaint containing the same defects as their original complaint and failed to state what 5 additional facts they would plead if given leave to amend
• concluding that amendment would 24 be futile where plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the same defects as the original 25 complaint and also failed to state what additional facts they would plead if given leave to amend
• concluding 12 amendment would be futile where plaintiffs already filed an amended complaint 13 containing the same defects as their original complaint
• noting that a bare allegation of a conspiracy is almost impossible to defend against 22 where numerous individuals are concerned

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).