scheduling order signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on August 11, 1999, directed that any motion to join parties or to amend the pleadings be made on or before September 15, 1999. This cross-motion was made on February 22, 2000, more than five months after this deadline. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) states that leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Although the rule requires that leave should be granted freely, it is within the sound discretion of the court whether to grant leave to amend. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Undue delay and futility of the amendment, among other factors, are reasons to deny leave. See id.; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Amerford Int’l Corp., 22 F.3d 458, 462 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). An amendment is futile if it “merely restates
holding district court properly denied leave to amend where application was four months late and appeared to be futile holding that upon conclusion that plaintiffs proposed amendment was futile district court correctly denied plaintiffs motion to amend 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 leave to amend was properly denied where the relator had previously filed two amended complaints holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months