Cited by

See Conklin v. Medtronic, Inc., ¶ 32 (App. 2017) (vacated on other grounds by Conklin v. Medtronic, Inc., ); ¶ 12 (App. 2015).

¶ 13 (2015); see also Ariz. R. Fam.

¶ 13 (2015) (cleaned up) () (“Prejudice is the inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues or inserts new parties into the litigation.”).

at 439, ¶ 27 (rejecting plaintiff- appellant’s argument that the superior court erred by dismissing his complaint without first providing him leave to amend in part because he never sought leave to amend the complaint); ¶ 12 (2015) (same).

“A court may deny leave to amend if it finds ‘undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments or undue prejudice to the opposing party.’” ¶ 13 (2015) (quotation omitted) (citation omitted).

¶ 13 (2015) (citation omitted).

However, the court may deny a request upon finding “undue delay, bad 4 STROJNIK v. BEST WESTERN Decision of the Court faith, dilatory motive, [and] repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments or undue prejudice to the opposing party,” ¶ 13 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted), or “if the amendment would be futile,” ELM Ret.

Co. v. New W. Homes, Inc., (no abuse of discretion in denial of post-summary judgment motion to amend); ¶ 13 (2015) (court properly exercised its discretion to decline late proposed amendment that “raises new issues 4 LATTIN v. SHAMROCK, et al. Decision of the Court requiring preparation for factual discovery which would

¶ 13 (2015) (holding undue prejudice for purposes of denying leave to amend can be found in “the inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment .

P. 15(a)(1), but is properly denied in cases of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, futility, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, or undue prejudice, ¶ 13 (2015); Timmons v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2014).

Corp., ¶ 9 (2016), but we review the superior court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion, Carranza v. 5 MARTIN, et al. v. STAHELI, et al. Opinion of the Court Madrigal, ¶ 13 (2015).

A court may deny leave to amend, however, if it finds “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments or undue prejudice to the opposing party.” ¶ 13 (2015) (internal quotation omitted).

See Owen, 133 Ariz. at 80; ¶ 14 (2015).

¶ 13 (2015) (“Prejudice is the inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues or inserts new parties into the litigation.”) (punctuation and citation omitted).

Leave to amend should be liberally granted, but is properly denied in cases of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, ¶ 13 (2015).

This court reviews “the denial of a request to amend for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (2015).