sufficiency of the amended complaint. Even if we were to conclude that Stillman’s amended complaint failed to allege veil-piercing claims, the district court acted well within its broad discretion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b)(1) to conform the amended complaint to include a veil-piercing claim in response to defendants’ objection at trial. Defendants cannot plausibly claim they were prejudiced by such an amendment because they were on notice that Stillman intended to pursue a veil-piercing theory from at least July 1, 2009, when Stillman submitted his first request to charge the jury on veil piercing, and they had within their custody and control all documents and witnesses relevant to rebutting Stillman’s veil-piercing claim. See Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 569 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Further, defendants implicitly consented to
holding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is a final appealable order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the  case internal quotation marks omitted holding that opponent claiming prejudice from rule 15b amendment must show that a partys failure to plead an issue it later presented must have disadvantaged its opponent in presenting its case internal quotation marks omitted holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted holding that in order to warrant equitable tolling alien claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the case during the period the alien seeks to toll internal quotation marks omitted holding that a ruling from a prior decision of this court becomes the law of the case that cannot be challenged in a later proceeding quotation marks omitted