other state law claims. Doc. 1. On February 21, 2013, Defendant Billy Bowden (“Bowden”) moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that the Court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. Doc. 8. On May 28, 2013, the Court denied Bowden’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that the Court does have supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. Doc. 16. Plaintiff now seeks to amend its Complaint to add Consilium as a defendant to the suit. Docs. 36-38. Defendants oppose the amendment. Doc. 41. II. Motion to Amend Under Rule 15(a), courts freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) (stating a court should freely grant leave to amend); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (<HOLDING>). “Whether leave to amend should be granted is
holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility holding that leave to amend should be freely given unless there is a good reason such as futility to the contrary holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay recognizing as legitimate grounds for denying a partys motion to amend undue delay bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment and futility of the amendment holding that futility prejudice or bad faith may justify refusing to grant leave to amend