ultimately entered by Arbitrator Coleman. Any amendment to plaintiffs complaint making this allegation would therefore be futile. J.A. at 51 (Mem.Op.). Because the district court cited only one reason for denying Local 519’s request to amend — futility—we review this decision de novo. For the reasons discussed in Part A, supra, we reject the district court’s reasoning about the futility of amendment. Although the arbitrator did not base his award on a finding of physical violence, the alleged fraud may have impacted his decision. We remand to the district court to consider whether there are any other grounds for denying Local 519’s motion to amend its complaint, such as undue delay or undue prejudice to UPS. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (<HOLDING>). III. THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay holding that futility prejudice or bad faith may justify refusing to grant leave to amend recognizing as legitimate grounds for denying a partys motion to amend undue delay bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment and futility of the amendment holding that it is abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend absent a clear or declared reason such as delay bad faith prejudice or a repeated failure to cure a problem in the complaint