context: The district court did not consider whether defendants would be prejudiced if plaintiffs were granted leave to amend, and we see no basis for a finding of prejudice. Plaintiffs simply seek to add specificity to scienter allegations in a situation where defendants are aware of the circumstances giving rise to the action.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 178 F.3d 231, 243
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that merely adding specificity to allegations generally does not cause prejudice to the opposing party
citation_a.sentence: Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir.1999) (noting that merely adding specificity to allegations generally does not cause prejudice to the opposing party); Laber, 438 F.3d at 427; see also Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir.1980) (“Because defendant was from the outset made fully aware of the events giving rise to the action, an allowance of the amendment could not in any way prejudice the preparation of defendant’s case.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 615 F.2d 606, 613
citation_b.parenthetical: "Because defendant was from the outset made fully aware of the events giving rise to the action, an allowance of the amendment could not in any way prejudice the preparation of defendant's case."
citation_b.sentence: Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir.1999) (noting that merely adding specificity to allegations generally does not cause prejudice to the opposing party); Laber, 438 F.3d at 427; see also Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir.1980) (“Because defendant was from the outset made fully aware of the events giving rise to the action, an allowance of the amendment could not in any way prejudice the preparation of defendant’s case.”).