or after argu ments on the motion to dismiss. During the course of arguments on the motion to dismiss, I focused solely on the issue of federal jurisdiction. At no point during this hearing did the Plaintiffs even suggest diversity as a basis for federal jurisdiction. The Defendants will, at a minimum, be prejudiced if I grant the Plaintiffs’ motion because they "will incur additional expenses to re-litigate dispositive motion practice on grounds the Plaintiffs did not seek to reassert until after dismissal of the case. Viewing the progress of this case in context, I find that lack of due diligence in considering their jurisdictional premises and undue delay on the part of the Plaintiffs provide sufficient reason to deny their motion for reconsideration. See Palmer, 465 F.3d at 31 (<HOLDING>); cf. Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82,
holding that a district court had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing holding that plaintiff was not allowed to voluntarily withdraw her complaint after electing to have her complaint heard before an administrative law judge holding that party waived disqualification complaint by filing her motion six and onehalf months after learning of the potential conflict