Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): were all based on these claims and are now mooted. 53 . Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass'n, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 45 P.3d 657, 671 (Alaska 2002). 54 . Thompson's Estate v. Mercedes-Benz, Inc., 514 P.2d 1269, 1271 (Alaska 1973). 55 . 3 Jamrs Wa Moore, Feperat Practice § 15.14[1] (3d ed.2003). 56 . 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 LEd.2d 222 (1962). 57 . Betz v. Chena Hot Springs Group, 742 P.2d 1346, 1348 (Alaska 1987) (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227). 58 . Thompson's Estate, 514 P.2d at 1271. 59 . Betz, 742 P.2d at 1348. 60 . Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 261 Cal.Rptr. 857, 859-60 (1989) (citing Higgins v. Del Faro, 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 176 Cal.Rptr. 704 (1981)); see also Smith v. Costa Lines, Inc., 97 F.R.D. 451, 453 (N.D.Cal.1983) (<HOLDING>); Karn v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife (B) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (C) holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay (D) holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (E) holding that it may be held an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave unless there is a demonstrable showing of prejudice to an opposing party
Output (English): holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay