Opinion ID: 5681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leave to Amend (Again)

Text: This Court reviews a district court's denial of leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Whitaker v. City of Houston, 963 F.2d 831, 836 (5th Cir.1992). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a). However, leave to amend is by no means automatic. Addington v. Farmer's Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. Unit A), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1098, 102 S.Ct. 672, 70 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981). Instead, the decision to grant or deny leave is one left to the sound discretion of the trial court. In deciding whether leave should be granted, the district court can consider factors such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party ... [and] futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). In the instant case, the district court did no t explain its reasons for denying the plaintiffs' motion. Such a failure is unfortunate but not fatal to affirmance. Rhodes v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist., 654 F.2d 1148, 1154 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 1981). Where reasons for denying leave to amend are ample and obvious, the district court's failure to articulate specific reasons does not indicate an abuse of discretion. Id. Here, the plaintiffs were allowed to amend two times. A third amendment was o rdered by the district court, but the plaintiffs failed to file it within the time allowed by FED.R.CIV.P. 12(e). The plaintiffs did not request leave to file the amended complaint at issue until another amendment to the complaint. September of 1991—nearly four years after the original complaint was filed. While delay alone may not be a sufficient reason to deny leave to amend, amendment should not be allowed where the proposed amendment would prejudice the opposing party. 6 CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1488, at 659-62 (1990). By the plaintiffs' own admission, their proposed amendment would have added a new cause of action against Montgomery County4—less than one week before the trial was scheduled to start. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' leave to amend.