within a reasonable amount of time, there has not been substantial performance and, as far as it is practicable, rescission would return the parties as closely as possible to their original positions. Notch View Assocs. v. Smith, 260 N.J.Super. 190, 615 A.2d 676, 679-80 (N.J.Super.Ct.Law Div.1992). Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing the request for rescission. 5. The district court did not abuse its discretion, Chodos, 292 F.3d at 1003, when it denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs did not seek to add a new party or theory. Rather, they sought to add new evidentiary support for their claims, which they will now have the opportunity to do at trial. See, e.g., Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 920 F.2d 1481, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in
holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless holding that even if the district court erred in sustaining the objection the error was harmless because the witness answered the question in the negative and the court did not strike his answer holding that even if witnesses were not timely disclosed appellant had not demonstrated that he suffered any prejudice and therefore any error was harmless holding an argument made in plaintiffs reply brief but not in their opening brief waived holding that even if the district court had erred by not allowing the plaintiff leave to file a reply brief any error was harmless because it did not prejudice the plaintiffs rights