5, 2011.” App. 26. Plaintiffs admit that on the same day, Le., May 31, 2011, the City provided them with the names of the officers who were involved in the August 80, 2008 incident. Nevertheless, plaintiffs waited over three months, until September 12, 2012, to seek leave to amend their complaint to name those officers as defendants. Plaintiffs reference ongoing settlement discussions to excuse the delay, maintaining “no willful intent to delay and no pattern of neglect.” Appellants’ Br. 11. The district court acted well within its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs’ three-month failure to move for amendment after learning the officers’ names failed to demonstrate the diligence necessary to satisfy Rule 16. See Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The cases on which plaintiffs rely warrant no
holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted holding that under rule 16 a finding of good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party internal quotation marks omitted holding that where a jury returned with a unanimous finding of no proximate cause but could not reach a unanimous finding on the question of negligence the jury verdict was simple to harmonize and such a finding compelled a judgment for defendant internal quotation marks omitted