With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CV-2036, 2008 WL 239550, at *3 (N.D.Ohio Jan.28, 2008). Thus, because CBG could not adequately explain its delay in bringing the claims — indeed, the factual basis for the new claims existed at the beginning of the lawsuit — and because the addition of new tort claims would have resulted in prejudice to defendants at such a late stage in the litigation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying CBG’s motions to amend. See Duggins v. Steak ‘N Shake, Inc., 195 F.3d 828, 834 (6th Cir.1999) (upholding district court’s denial of leave to amend because plaintiff was aware of basis of claim for months prior to seeking amendment, the time for discovery had passed, dispositive motion deadline had passed, and a motion for summary judgment had been filed); Leary, 349 F.3d at 909 (<HOLDING>). C. Discovery-Related Rulings Finally, CBG

A: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court
B: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint to add punitive damages where motion was filed seven weeks before end of discovery but ten months after district court entered scheduling order and where plaintiff provided no reason why those damages could not have been alleged earlier and no good cause for late filing of motion to amend
C: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline
D: holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint
C.