the denial of an amendment.” Cornell & Co. Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Board Comm’n., 573 F.2d 820, 823 (3d Cir.1978). When considering prejudice, courts focus on the burden to the non-moving party if the amendment is allowed: “Specifically, [courts] have considered whether allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defend against new facts or new theories.” Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273. Courts have denied a request for leave to amend when both discovery would need to be reopened and a new trial date would need to be set, Paschal v. Florida Public Employees Relations Com’n, 666 F.2d 1381, 1384 (11th Cir.1982), and when the opposing party would suffer “severe, irremediable prejudice” if leave was granted. Cornell, 573 F.2d at 823-26 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In contrast, courts have
holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order recognizing utility of amendment as a proper basis for dismissal without leave to amend holding that upon conclusion that plaintiffs proposed amendment was futile district court correctly denied plaintiffs motion to amend holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made holding that because proposed amendment changed the legal and factual basis of a claim leave to amend must be denied