- 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 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007