resources the court will save if indeed it disposes of the case on the basis of the proposed defenses, as opposed to engaging in lengthy proceedings that give the plaintiff a second bite of the juridical apple.” Nwachukwu v. Karl, 222 F.R.D. 208, 211 (D.D.C. 2004) (granting leave to amend despite the fact that a year and a half passed between the defendant’s filing of the original answer and his motion for leave to file an amended answer). Moreover, the plaintiff does not identify, nor does the court discern, any prejudice that would result from the delay. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n. Moreover, the fact that the litigation is in its nascent stages militates in favor of allowing the defendants to amend their answer. Cf. Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 427 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the plaintiff is correct that the
holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint holding that a plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to add a claim holding that denial of leave to amend was appropriate because the plaintiff sought to amend his complaint two years after filing his complaint  on the eve of trial when discovery was complete holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court