Opinion ID: 675172
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint

Text: 13 Plaintiff next argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint. Plaintiff argues, in essence, that it was unfair for the district court to deny the motion on grounds that he failed to comply with the district court's previous orders because the December 14, 1992, order did not clearly set forth the district court's directions in this regard. In response, defendant argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review this claim on appeal because plaintiff failed to specifically identify the district court's ruling on the motion for leave to amend the complaint in his notice of appeal. The notice of appeal states, in its entirety, [c]omes now Plaintiff and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granting summary judgment entered on January 14, 1993. Defendant further argues that, in any case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's eleventh-hour motion. 14 Upon review, we hold that the district court's ruling on the motion for leave to amend was sufficiently identified in the notice of appeal. Rule 3(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states that the notice must designate the judgment, order, or part thereof appealed from. On the merits, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff moved for leave to amend only thirteen days before the case was set for a bench trial, after the parties had already prepared and submitted their pretrial materials. With the proposed amendment, new issues would have been added and a jury may have been required. Moreover, as the district court noted, plaintiff had long been apprised by the district court of the shortcomings in the original and first amended complaints, and no newly discovered facts or circumstances justified the lateness of plaintiff's effort to cure the defects.