not be unjustly prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint. The defendant also opposes the plaintiffs motion on the ground that the “[pjlaintiff seeks to add new causes of action ...” See Def.’s Opp’n at 1. Failing to explain why the court should deny an amended complaint on that basis, the defendant makes this assertion without providing any discussion, argument, or analysis of the point. The court can only speculate as to the reasons why the defendant opposes amendment on this ground, especially since courts have generally held otherwise. See Chatin v. Coombe, 186 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir.1999) (allowing a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint in order to add a claim); Ruf v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1092 at *5-8 (D.D.C.1999) (Hogan, J.) (<HOLDING>). Without engaging in speculation, the court
holding that a plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to add a claim holding that a plaintiff should be allowed to vacate a judgment and amend the complaint to proceed under a new legal theory 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 holding that district court erred in denying leave to amend complaint to add new legal theories even though trial was approaching holding that dismissal of a complaint for insufficient jurisdictional allegations should be without prejudice to amend