add additional parties and additional claims. (See Pl.’s Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7, 11, 21-37.) PBS Inc. ar gues that its proposed amendment “achieves substantial justice” and will not unduly prejudice CHF. (See Pl.’s Mot. to Am. Mem. at 2.) 1. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). As the Second Circuit has explained, however, a district court “plainly has discretion ... to deny leave to amend where the motion is made after an inordinate delay, no satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay, and the amendment would prejudice the defendant.” Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 72 (2d Cir.1990); see also Goss v. Revlon, 548 F.2d 405, 407 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). When a “considerable period of time has
holding that where the party in seeking to add myriad new claims advances no reason for his extended and undue delay other than ignorance of the law such failure has been held an insufficient basis for leave to amend holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility 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 though the court did not expressly state its reason for denying leave to amend it was apparent what delay and prejudice would be caused by plaintiffs motion which sought to add four new individual defendants as well as additional counts under two federal statutes and a statelaw claim