The Estate of B.H. v. Netflix, Inc

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 THE ESTATE OF B.H., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-06561-YGR 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH v. PREJUDICE 9 NETFLIX, INC., 10 Defendant.

1] 13 On January 12, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Netflix, Inc.’s special motion to 14 strike pursuant to California anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.16, as well as 15 || Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 74.) Plaintiffs were A 16 || directed to submit a statement indicating whether amendment would cure the deficiencies i 17 || identified in the January 12, 2022 order. The statement has been received. (Dkt. No. 75.)

Zz 18 Given the Court’s order, plaintiffs agree at this time that amendment would be futile and || reserve the possibility of amendment after exhausting their appeal. Therefore, Netflix’s motions || are granted without leave to amend and the case is dismissed with prejudice. See Platt Elec. || Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of leave || where “amendments would have been futile”). The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

23 IT Is SO ORDERED.

24 || Dated: January 19, 2022 26 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE