action under § 113 of CERCLA — is mandatory....” GenCorp Inc. v. Olin Corp., 390 F.3d 433, 450 (6th Cir.2004), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 420, 163 L.Ed.2d 320 (2005); 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4) (stating that “[t]he amounts recoverable in an action under this section shall include interest on the amounts recoverable”) (emphasis added); see also Bancamerica Comm. Corp. v. Mosher Steel of Kansas, 100 F.3d 792, 801 (10th Cir.), as amended, 103 F.3d 80 (1996). Prejudgment interest “shall accrue from the later of (i) the date payment of a specified amount is demanded in writing, or (ii) the date of the expenditure concerned.” 42 U.S.C. § 9607(A)(4). We review the district court’s decision on prejudgment interest for an abuse of discretion. See Bancamerica Comm., 100 F.3d at 801 (<HOLDING>). We respectfully reject the Horne Appellants’
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time holding district court abused its discretion in concluding that the third amended complaint did not meet the demand requirements where it asserted response costs in excess of 1 million against two defendants holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a third amended complaint where the plaintiff had already been given opportunities to amend and did not indicate what additional facts he could plead to correct the deficiencies in his complaint