- 12 -
(1992) (denying motion filed 8 years after the petition was
filed).
We also note that the instant case was not scheduled for
trial when petitioner filed its motion.5 It is therefore
distinguishable from many of the cases in which the denial of a
motion for leave to amend was upheld. See, e.g., Ashe v. Corley,
992 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1993) (upholding denial of a motion for
leave to amend filed 1 week before trial); Jackson v. Columbus
Dodge, Inc., 676 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1982) (upholding denial of a
motion filed 1 day before a pretrial conference and 19 months
after the complaint was filed); Rhodes v. Amarillo Hospital
Dist., 654 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1981) (upholding denial of a
motion filed 30 months after the initial complaint and 3 weeks
before trial). Accordingly, we conclude that there is no undue
delay in the instant case.
Respondent contends that respondent will be prejudiced if
petitioner’s motion is granted because additional discovery will
be necessary. The need for additional discovery is a factor to
consider in granting or denying a motion for leave to amend. See
Ross v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 699 F.2d 218, 229 (5th Cir.
1983). Additional discovery often will be required, however,
when a petition is amended. The nonmoving party generally is not
5 The instant case was calendared for trial on the Oct. 30,
2006, San Antonio, Texas, trial session but was continued after
the parties filed a joint motion for continuance of trial.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007