Undue Prejudice. Plaintiff claims it would suffer substantial prejudice if leave is granted because Defendant is asserting a new theory of liability after the Court denied the parties’ summary judgment motions. 1 A court may find undue prejudice where amending a pleading would result in unfair surprise, unreasonably expand the issues or necessitate the need for additional discovery. Xxxxx, 79 Fed. Cl. at 742-43. Undue prejudice exists when amendment would prevent the non-movant from adequately responding to the new claims. In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 217 F.R.D. 30, 32 (D.D.C. 2003). While Defendant did not seek a formal amendment earlier in the litigation process, it did provide notice of the potential counterclaims in its cross-motion for summary judgment and response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment two months after Plaintiff filed its amended complaint. Further, permitting the assertion of breach of fiduciary duty counterclaims would not unduly broaden the issues in contention, given that the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty stem from Plaintiff’s conduct in drafting and performing the contract at issue. Finally, Plaintiff has not argued that granting the amendment would necessitate additional discovery.2 Nor has either party requested an extension of the trial date in the event the Court were to grant Defendant’s motion for leave to amend.
Undue Prejudice. Xxxxxxxx next contends that allowing the amendment would be unduly prejudicial for three reasons: (1) Xxxxxxx has filed multiple lawsuits against Xxxxxxxx and CAH and this one only adds to the defendants’ litigation expense; (2) too much time has passed since the conduct from 2011 to 2012 described in the additional allegations; and (3) Xxxxxxx’s failure to include a redlined copy of the amended complaint with his motion has made defending the new allegations more difficult. None of these arguments support a finding of undue prejudice.
Undue Prejudice. “Prejudice is one of ‘the most important reasons for denying a motion to amend.’” Xxxx v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Xx. 00 Xxx. 3672, 2013 WL 5272935, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2013) (quoting Xxxxxx x. Xxxxx, 986 F. Supp. 195, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)). Undue prejudice arises “when an amendment [comes] on the eve of trial and would result in new problems of proof,” Xxxxxxx v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 192 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting State Teachers Retirement Board v. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir. 1981)), or when a defendant would be compelled to expend significant additional resources, AEP Energy Services Gas Holding Co. v. Bank of America, N.A., 626 F.3d 699, 727 (2d Cir. 2010). Adding new, alternative claims to a complaint is not typically a basis for denial of a motion to amend. LSSi Data Corp.
