WL 1501452, at *10 & n. 3 (noting that “the question before the Court is whether [d]e-fendant reported accurate information, not whether [djefendant violated the bankruptcy code”). Lastly, Plaintiff fails to allege the nature of the debt owed to Credit Bureau, and fails to allege that this debt is not a child support obligation. Because Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that any of the reported information was inaccurate or incomplete, - Plaintiff does not state a FCRA claim for failing to correct reported information. See Drew, 690 F.3d at 1106. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Credit Bureau’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs FCRA cause of action. The Court does so with leave to amend because the Court concludes that amendment would not necessarily be futile. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (<HOLDING>). B. Plaintiff’s Claim under Cal. Civ. Code §
holding that when a district court expressly grants leave to amend it is plain that the order is not final recognizing that courts almost always grant leave to amend to cure deficiencies in pleading fraud holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made holding that a district court should grant leave to amend unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court