With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and will become ‘prejudicial,’ placing an unfair burden on the opposing party.” Delay may become undue when a movant has had previous opportunities to amend a complaint. Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273 (quoting Adams, 739 F.2d at 868) (internal citations omitted); see also Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 205 (3d Cir.2006) (“There is, of course, no presumptive period in which a motion for leave to amend is deemed timely or in which delay becomes undue.”) (internal quotations omitted). Under this standard, courts have denied leave to amend following a three year lapse between the filing of the complaint and the proposed amendment, Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir.1993), and when the applicable party proposed a second amendment that essentially would “re 96 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Courts also have allowed amendment after

A: holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay
B: holding that delay of eleven months did not justify denial of leave to amend
C: holding that denial of a postconviction motion without prejudice and with leave to amend is not a final appealable order
D: holding that denial of leave to amend is error in the absence of justifying reasons
B.