Opinion ID: 1911164
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attempt to Amend Petition.

Text: More than a year after filing his initial petition, plaintiff asked for leave to amend so as to add additional counts. In denying that motion, the district court stated: The three claims stated in plaintiff's original petition are, essentially, contract claims. The two claims plaintiff seeks to add are tort claims. In addition, the two claims require a closer scrutiny of the motive for plaintiff's discharge from employment than do the claims stated in the original petition. The court has granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the claims stated in the original petition and the petition has been dismissed. The court believes the granting of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend would substantially change the issues. This court has considered the complexity of a case and the timeliness or untimeliness of the requested amendment when determining whether or not a district court has abused its discretion in denying an application to amend. Farm Fuel Prod. Corp. v. Grain Processing Corp., 429 N.W.2d 153, 162 (Iowa 1988). When we consider these factors in the present case, we are convinced that the district court was well within its discretion in refusing to permit the amendment. We have considered all issues presented and find no basis for overturning the order of the district court. AFFIRMED.