Is undue delay sufficient to deny a motion to amend the fourth cause of action?

Defendants argue the motion should be denied due to Plaintiffs' undue delay because they have known all along the facts underlying the fourth cause of action. "Undue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend." Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). Denial is improper in the absence of "a contemporaneous specific finding of prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, or futility of the amendment." Id. Defendants do not contend that they were prejudiced by the timing of Plaintiffs' motion. Accordingly, to the extent they rely on undue delay alone, their argument is rejected.

Page 3

Defendants also contend the motion should be denied with respect to the fourth cause of action because amendment would be futile in this respect. A district court does not abuse discretion by "denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile or where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal." Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991).