why justice would so require an amendment to include a claim on an open account, and the cases cited by Alliance have done little to clarify the matter. See, e.g., Slide-A-Ride of Las Cruces, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Las Cruces, 105 N.M. 433, 436, 733 P.2d 1316, 1319 (1987) (concluding that because “[n]othing ha[d] been offered by [the plaintiff] to explain why justice required allowance of the amendment,” the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend). Because we have decided that Alliance is precluded from recovering payment from Defendants in this case, the addition of a claim for recovery based on another theory would serve no purpose. Granting of the amendment would have been futile. See Stinson v. Berry, 1997-NMCA-076, ¶ 11, 123 N.M. 482, 943 P.2d 129 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION {27} We hold that the district
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend complaint because the proposed amendment would have been futile holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to sever because trial of three defendants would not create confusion holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time holding that upon conclusion that plaintiffs proposed amendment was futile district court correctly denied plaintiffs motion to amend holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint