preclusion and issue preclusion because they did not raise those defenses in the suit brought by the plaintiff and other ATCSs in the Court of Federal Claims. Id. at 16. Rule 15(a) gives district courts discretion in deciding a party’s motion for leave to amend a pleading. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227. Leave to amend should be “freely given” unless the non-moving party can show “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, futility of amendment, etc.” Id. But “delay, without a showing of prejudice, is not a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” Harrison v. Rubin, 174 F.3d 249, 253 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Despite the plaintiffs argument to the
holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay holding that district court erred in denying leave to amend complaint to add new legal theories even though trial was approaching 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 that a plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to add a claim holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add count when no prejudice resulted from two and onehalf year delay and facts underlying new and old counts were similar