finding undue delay when “complaint had been before the district court, [the D.C. Circuit,] and the Supreme Court for over thirty-eight months,” the plaintiffs “gave no indication . . . of any potential change in their theory of the case,” and the record reflected “no sound reason for the [plaintiffs’] failure to 5 seek amendment earlier”
How later courts described this case
- finding undue delay when “complaint had been before the district court, [the D.C. Circuit,] and the Supreme Court for over thirty-eight months,” the plaintiffs “gave no indication . . . of any potential change in their theory of the case,” and the record reflected “no sound reason for the [plaintiffs’] failure to 5 seek amendment earlier”
- upholding denial of leave to amend to add a new allegation and a new defendant because plaintiffs had litigated for thirty eight months “with no indication . . . of any potential change in their theory of the case,” which could “seriously prejudice [the non-movants] interests”
- affirming district court’s decision to deny the plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint because the motion was filed more than three years after the commencement of litigation
- “[A]ppellants gave no indication before that Court of any potential change in their theory of the case.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
ORDER
On consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by appellants John Doe, et al., it is
*56 ORDERED by the Court that appellants’ aforesaid petition is denied.
Statement of LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of the petition for rehearing.