loss as of that date. Blackmon further argues that the net operating loss of $5,657,287 in 1999 was not indicative of the loss Nexity might incur in the future because he understood from one and omissions regarding Nexity’s financial performance in the year 2000 were immaterial as a matter of law. ii. June 15, 2000, Closing Blackmon argues that the Nexity defendants misrepresented the closing date of the offering as June 15, 2000, because Nexity actually allowed investors to purchase stock even after August 2000. Blackmon bases this argument on the new factual allegation in the stricken amended complaint. Because we hold that the amended complaint was properly disallowed, the trial court was correct in not addressing this argument. See Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>). Therefore, we do not consider this argument.
holding that underlying complaints filed by several plaintiffs all contained express allegations of property damage and that because all complaints arose from the same set of circumstances the allegations in any single complaint can be inferred in the other complaints holding that the trial court properly refused to consider allegations in the disallowed amended complaints holding that the trial court properly struck the amended complaint when the plaintiff offered no reason to refute the trial courts finding that the new allegations in the amended complaint were based on facts the plaintiff had known since the beginning of the action holding leave to amend was properly denied where the relator had previously filed two amended complaints holding that the trial court properly refused defendants instruction because it invaded the province of the jury