Opinion ID: 755768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Austin's Motion for Leave to Amend

Text: 26 The district court denied Austin's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which omitted the admissions in the first amended complaint, on the basis that Austin could not by these omissions erase[ ] the admissions in her first amended complaint. We agree. 27 A district court's decision to deny a motion to amend a complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Azurite Corp. v. Amster & Co., 52 F.3d 15, 19 (2d Cir.1995). The amendment of a pleading does not make it any the less an admission of the party. Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R., 882 F.2d 705, 707 (2d Cir.1989). Therefore, Austin cannot benefit from amending her complaint to omit these admissions.