Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to the opposing party or for reasons of ‘undue delay.’” 953 So.2d at 1189. Furthermore, our supreme court explained the meaning of the term “undue delay.” Specifically, it stated: “Undue delay can have two different meanings in a case. First, the trial court has discretion to deny an amendment to a pleading if allowing the amendment would unduly delay the trial. Horton v. Shelby Med. Ctr., 562 So.2d 127, 130 (Ala.1989). Second, an unexplained undue delay in filing an amendment when the party has had sufficient opportunity to discover the facts necessary to file the amendment earlier is also sufficient grounds upon which to deny the amendment. Stallings [v. Angelica Uniform Co.], 388 So.2d [942,] 947 [ (Ala.1980) ]; see also Rector v. Better Houses, Inc., 820 So.2d 75, 78 (Ala. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Burkett [v. American Gen. Fin., Inc.], 607 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that since defendant failed to timely remove the original complaint which was removable based on federal question jurisdiction defendant thereby waived its right to file a subsequent removal even though the complaint was amended to add a new federal claim where the amendment to the complaint did not change the nature of the action so as to constitute a substantially new suit since the new allegations and claims were not substantially different from those in the original complaint (B) holding that a demand for jury trial should be denied if the issues in the original complaint and the amended complaint turn on the same matrix of facts (C) holding that pleadings could not be amended where no evidence offered during trial was outside the issues in the original complaint (D) holding that the trial court properly struck the amended complaint when the plaintiff offered no reason to refute the trial courts finding that the new allegations in the amended complaint were based on facts the plaintiff had known since the beginning of the action (E) holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion in striking the amended complaint where the plaintiffs had learned of the facts underlying the new allegations six months before they attempted to amend
Output (English): holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion in striking the amended complaint where the plaintiffs had learned of the facts underlying the new allegations six months before they attempted to amend