allegations about FAA orders which governed the conduct of FAA controllers. However, as the district court concluded, allowing such an amendment would be futile because the court had already considered the claimed violations of FAA orders in the context of the previous complaint. Moreover, the district court concluded that even if the amendment were not futile, it would nonetheless deny the motion because it would be unduly prejudicial to the United States. Given that the plaintiffs’ motion came approximately three years after the start of the litigation and approximately eight months after the plaintiffs completed discovery, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. See Perrian v. O’Grady, 958 F.2d 192, 194 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). III. Paul Alinsky, Jeffrey Walker, Colleen
holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding that appellate court should overturn a district courts denial of a motion to amend a complaint only if the district court has abused its discretion holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months