Opinion ID: 673834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: denial of tribe's motion to amend

Text: 27 Twenty four days before trial of the third phase was to begin, the Tribe sought leave to amend its complaint in intervention to allege a claim for water and fishing rights under Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908). The district court denied the motion as untimely. We reversed because the district court had relied solely upon the Tribe's delay in bringing the motion without considering whether the opposing parties had been prejudiced. United States v. Pend Oreille Public Utility Dist. No. 1, 926 F.2d 1502, 1511-12 (9th Cir.1991). On remand, the district court found the delay had been unduly long and that the Utility would be prejudiced if the motion were granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.1989) (In deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend, factors to be considered include the presence or absence of undue delay ... [and] undue prejudice to the opposing party....). 28 The Tribe's delay was extreme and unexplained. The legal basis for the claim had existed since 1908. The United States filed the action in March of 1980. The Tribe intervened in August of 1982. The Tribe moved to add the Winters claim seven years after the case began, five years after leave to intervene was granted, eleven months after the district court entered judgment against the Tribe in the second phase, approximately a month after the close of discovery in the third phase, and twenty-four days before the commencement of the third phase trial. The Tribe offered no explanation for the delay. 29 Prejudice to the Utility would have been substantial. The Tribe had alleged ownership of the beds and shores of the river but not of the water or fish. The extensive discovery undertaken prior to the second phase trial did not consider reserved water and fishing rights. Completed depositions would have to be retaken, new depositions of yet-to-be retained experts would have to be scheduled, and new state agencies would have to be brought into the action with new attorneys to represent the interests of those agencies. 16 Trial of the third phase would have been substantially delayed. 30 The district court's findings regarding undue delay and prejudice are not clearly erroneous and amply justify denial of the motion to amend. See Western Shoshone Nat'l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir.1991); Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990); M/V American Queen v. San Diego Marine Const., 708 F.2d 1483, 1492 (9th Cir.1983).