. . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In addition to considering the effect of amendment on the parties, the court must consider “the importance of t

. . . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In addition to considering the effect of amendment on the parties, the court must consider “the importance of th

sing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.--the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'" Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). 3. In the instant case, Defendant only amended his affirmative defenses. This is

osing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, `be freely given.' Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (quoting FED. R. Ctv. P. 15(a)). "[A]bsent a showing of bad faith or undue prejudice," mere delay "does not provi

r, Dan 721 5th n739 NY 001 001 001 h c) tvOlict • EFTA00191490 Park House 7.11 Onlow SO London 1A7 J 017-22 314 (w) 0171-581 118 11) Foman, Bobby & Jeanette r/o, Forbes Zand 001 017 8-16 7617 pf Forbes, Chris (Kip) Astrid Knishtinoram• 95 Old Dutch Road (h) Far Hills N York ve