813, 822 (8th Cir.2006)). We generally “will not consider prejudice [to the nonmovant] if the movant has not been diligent in meeting the scheduling order’s deadlines.” Id. at 717. Instead, we “focus in the first instance (and usually solely) on the diligence of the party who sought modification of the order.” Id. Where there has been “no change in the law, no newly discovered facts, or any other changed circumstance ... after the scheduling deadline for amending pleadings,” then we may conclude that the moving party has failed to show good cause. Id. at 718. Here, the Hartises were not “diligent” in seeking to amend their complaint. See id. at 716-17. The motion to amend came over two years after the scheduling order’s deadline. See Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 589 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Hartises have not alleged a
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint to add punitive damages where motion was filed seven weeks before end of discovery but ten months after district court entered scheduling order and where plaintiff provided no reason why those damages could not have been alleged earlier and no good cause for late filing of motion to amend 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 had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint 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 district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline