Opinion ID: 769609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Trotter's Motion For Leave to Amend Her Complaint

Text: 18 Trotter next challenges the district court's March 31 denial of her motion for leave to file a substitute second amended complaint. We reject this argument. The decision to grant leave to amend a complaint after the permissive period has ended is well within the discretion of the trial court, particularly when the party seeking amendment [knew] or should have known of the facts upon which the proposed amended [complaint] is based but failed to include them in the original complaint. Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023, 1027 (10th Cir. 1994). Trotter has failed to convince us that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for leave to file a substitute second amended complaint. Thus, we affirm the district court's March 31 order denying Trotter's motion for leave to amend.