Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Alfred Brawer appeals from the district court's denial of his third motion for leave to amend his complaint. The district court denied the motion because the defendants would have been prejudiced by the "time-consuming and costly discovery" these new claims would have generated. Clerk's Record, 139 at 1, 125 at 5. We review for abuse of discretion. Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982).

The district court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for leave to amend, especially where the party seeking to amend has bypassed other opportunities to do so. Mir v. Fosburg 646 F.2d 342, 347 (9th Cir. 1980). The crucial factor is the resulting prejudice, such as the burden of additional discovery, to the opposing party. Jordan 669 F.2d at 1324. After declining to amend the complaint when his second motion to amend was granted, Brawer again sought leave to add five claims and twenty-nine defendants. Substantial and burdensome discovery had already been undertaken in this two-year-old case; the new claims would reopen the trial preparation process. Under these circumstances, the district court was well within its discretion in denying the motion.

AFFIRMED.