facts and arguments that could have been pled much earlier in the proceedings.” Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 155 F.3d 644, 654-55 (3d Cir.1998). See also Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273-74 (affirming district court’s denial of plaintiffs post-summary-judgment motion to amend because, among other things, “the motion was filed three years after the complaint was filed” and “the factual information on which the proposed amendment relied was known almost two-and-a-half years before plaintiffs sought leave to amend”). In contrast, courts have granted leave to amend when the delay was less than one year. See e.g., Arthur, 434 F.3d 196 at 204-05 (affirming grant of leave to amend after a delay of eleven months); Dubicz v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 377 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Roberson v. Hayti Police Dep’t, 241 F.3d 992,
holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months holding that delay of eleven months did not justify denial of leave to amend holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add count when no prejudice resulted from two and onehalf year delay and facts underlying new and old counts were similar holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint