
    Dennis HELLERVIK and Tho Hellervik, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 3M COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-56373.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 6, 2014.
    Filed June 16, 2014.
    Stephen Thomas Blackburn, Esquire Eric L. Brown, Esquire Debíase Brown Eyerly LLP Los Angeles, CA Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, Esquire The Ehrlich Law Firm Encino, CA Michael C. Eyerly, Litigation Counsel Debíase Brown Eyerly LLP Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Mordecai Dempsey Boone, Kristine Fu-toran, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Francisco, CA, P. Gerhardt Zacher, Esquire, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Diego, CA, Sheena Yon-Jung Kwon, Esquire, Dean A. Olson, Esquire, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP, Min K. Kang, Esquire, Bruce Gary Chusid, Sel-man Breitman LLP, Paul Christopher White, II, Esquire, Dehay & Elliston, L.L.P., Julia A. Gowin, Esquire, Barry Schirm, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP., Craig Barnes, Esquire, Alison Katherine Beanum, Esquire, Steven D. Di Saia, Esquire, Robert Kum, Esquire, Sedgwick LLP, Anne Swoboda Cruz, Tucker Ellis & West, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, John Mar-ston, Esquire, Peter K. Renstrom, Esquire, Stuart E. Supowit, Esquire, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, Todd M. Thacker, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, B. Thomas French, Philip S. Ward, Esquire, Hassard Bonnington LLP, Katherine P. Gardiner, Esquire, Derek Spencer Johnson, Charles T. Sheldon, Esquire, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall, LLP, Zachariah D. Baker, Brendan Tuohy, K & L Gates, LLP, James Landon Mink, Esquire, Sedgwick LLP, David Taro Biderman, Esquire, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert H. Baronian, Esquire, Baronian Law Firm, Danielle Patricia Ochi, Esquire, Prindle Amaro Goetz Hillyard Barnes & Reinholtz LLP, Pasadena, CA, Aaron Robert Gold-stein, Perkins Coie LLP, Jennifer Judin, Esquire, Lara M. Kruska, Esquire, Joanna Macqueen, Esquire, Lisa J. Perrochet, Esquire, Horvitz & Levy LLP, Encino, CA, Anthony J. Calero, Esquire, Timothy J. McCaffery, Esquire, Lombardi, Loper & Conant, LLP, Robert D. Eassa, Esquire, Cameron J. Hoyler, Esquire, Filice Brown Eassa & McLeod LLP, Oakland, CA, Megan Doan, Esquire, Charles Murrin, Esquire, Murrin & Associates LLC, Lafayette, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FISHER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dennis and Tho Hellervik appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for asbestos-related injuries and from its denial of leave to amend their complaint. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir.2012), we reverse the district court’s denial of leave to amend. We need not decide whether the complaint was properly dismissed.

“Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir.1996)).

Here, the only reason the district court gave for denying leave to amend was that the Hellerviks “have already had two chances to state sufficient factual allegations to support their claims.” This is no reason not to permit amendment of a complaint. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (identifying “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment” as the sort of factors that may justify denying leave to amend a complaint); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1005 (“ ‘[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.’”) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000)).

Because the district court did not give a legitimate reason for withholding leave to amend, it abused its discretion. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (“A district court’s failure to consider the relevant factors and articulate why dismissal should be with prejudice instead of without prejudice may constitute an abuse of discretion.” (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227)). We remand to the district court so that the Hellerviks may file an amended complaint.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     