judgment has been issued in this case. But see id. The plaintiff explains that she did not submit her motion earlier due to difficulties with “short-term legal representation and the burden of proceeding pro se.” See Pl.’s Resp. at 5; but see Williamsburg Wax Museum, 810 F.2d at 247. Given these difficulties, the court believes that the plaintiff has not previously had “abundant opportunity” to raise the issues which she is attempting to raise by amending her complaint. But see Williamsburg Wax Museum, 810 F.2d at 247; Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that denial of leave to amend is appropriate where a plaintiff has had two previous amendments coupled with delay); State Trading Corp. of India, Ltd. v. Assuranceforeningen Skuld, 921 F.2d 409, 418 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); The court now turns to the defendant’s
holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant leave to the moving party to amend their complaint before final summary judgment was entered recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court holding that a court may deny leave to amend when the moving party had the opportunity to amend earlier but waited after judgment to do so holding that although district courts have discretion to deny leave to amend they may only do so for a substantial reason