Romstad

MEMORANDUM *

Arne, Rhonda, and Melysa Romstad appeal four decisions made by the district court in their suit against Contra Costa County and other defendants. We affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts, and we will not recite them here.

The district court did not err, much less abuse its discretion, 1 when it denied Plaintiffs’ late motion to amend to add three central defendants. The potential prejudice to the existing and proposed defendants from such a late amendment justified the court’s decision. 2 Plaintiffs knew of the proposed defendants’ roles by the end of November 2000 at the latest. Yet they waited to file their motion until after the parties had completed discovery, this court had resolved an interlocutory appeal, the district court had scheduled a trial date, and the time for filing dispositive motions was about to end. 3 The proposed defendants would have been entitled to assert their own qualified immunity defenses based on their unique circumstances. 4 Moreover, they would have been entitled to appeal if the district court found they lacked immunity. Thus, Plaintiffs’ delay invited piecemeal appeals and, if the district court had granted their motion,…