The first factor clearly weighs against granting plaintiffs leave to amend. Previous requests for remand and a lack of reasonable investigation establish that the purpose of plaintiffs counsel is to defeat jurisdiction. The second factor, also weighs against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel claim they first learned Donahue performed the surgical procedure at Floyds deposition, but this fact was previously known to their client, Floyd. Plaintiffs' counsel should have asked who performed the procedure prior to filing the original and amended complaints, a second amendment now will delay the proceedings.
Plaintiffs request is untimely.
Plaintiffs now claim the amount in controversy is not sufficient for federal diversity jurisdiction. Memorandum of Law of Plaintiffs in Support of Motion to Amend, at 16. If true, failure of plaintiffs' counsel to make a reasonable inquiry is indefensible. This would have been knowledge their client obviously had and plaintiffs' counsel might not have made adequate inquiry. Jurisdiction is determined by the facts when the action was filed and is not defeated by subsequent developments.