Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1474 (1990)) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)). In Johnson, this Court expressed the sentiment that it was somewhat illogical that leave of court should be required to reinstate previously dismissed defendants and not required to add new defendants when “naming wholly new defendants seems far more likely to cause delay or prejudice.” See Johnson, 244 F.R.D. at 6. Despite this Court’s recognition of the well-established principal that plaintiffs may add new defendants as a matter of course when amending a complaint, in extraordinary cases the Court will deny such a motion. See Burdine v. Wells, No. 94-3103, 1994 WL 174174, at *2 n. 1 (D.Kan. Apr. 28, 1994) (<HOLDING>), ajfd, 45 F.3d 439 (10th Cir.1994)
recognizing the rule that a plaintiff may generally amend a complaint once as a matter of course before the filing of a responsive pleading but nonetheless denying a plaintiffs attempt to add a new defendant because plaintiffs claim was without legal or factual foundation holding in an appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 that when the papers before the sixth circuit indicate that the plaintiff could submit an amended complaint that would state a claim upon which relief can be granted the proper course is to remand to permit the plaintiff to amend holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that a plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to add a claim holding that district court erred in denying leave to amend complaint to add new legal theories even though trial was approaching