The question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit in U.S. Mortgage, Inc. v. Saxton, 494 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2007) was whether SLUSA allows amendment of the complaint in a removed action to plead around SLUSA and federal jurisdiction. The Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have refused to allow a plaintiff class to amend its way around a SLUSA dismissal where the amended complaint, fairly read, still contains allegations of fraud involving a covered security. Dudek v. Prudential Secs., Inc., 295 F.3d 875, 879-80 (8th Cir. 2002); Behlen v. Merrill Lynch, 311 F.3d 1087, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit adopted a somewhat different approach. Noting that ‛Congress included no express prohibition against amendment and no court has held that SLUSA completely and categorically bars any amendment of the complaint following removal,“ the Ninth Circuit found persuasive district court opinions in that Circuit recognizing the possible inequity of dismissing an otherwise valid state law claim simply because a plaintiff pleads — perhaps inadvertently — a cause of action that may be construed as federal in nature. Held: ‛In light of the statutory silence on the issue in SLUSA, the existence of competing policy rationales, and the fact that the granting or denial of leave to amend is ordinarily a matter left to the discretion of the district court, we hold that SLUSA does not prohibit amendment of the complaint after removal.“