Hines, 995 F.2d 295, 299 (D.C.Cir.1993) (noting that Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) gives court power to grant leave to amend complaint even after case is dismissed); 6 Charles Alan Wright Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: CM 2d § 1488, at 652, 659, 662-69 (1990 & Supp.1997) (“Rule 15(a) does not prescribe any time limit within which a party may apply to the court for leave to amend____ In most cases delay alone is not a sufficient reason for denying leave---- If no prejudice [to the non-moving party] is found, the amendment will be allowed”). C&W makes much of the district court’s statement that it was denying CBS leave to amend in view of the “entire lengthy record herein,” but C&W’s argument is not entirely clear. C&W could be a Inc., 644 F.2d 690 (8th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The length of a litigation is relevant only
holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months holding that district court erred in denying leave to amend complaint to add new legal theories even though trial was approaching holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add count when no prejudice resulted from two and onehalf year delay and facts underlying new and old counts were similar holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay