MEMORANDUM ORDER
This mаtter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks a second amended complaint to add twelve causes of action.
Plaintiff filed this suit in D.C. Superior Court on April 17, 1989. On May 9, 1989, defendant Harrison Western petitioned to have the actiоn removed to this Court. On July 3,1989, plaintiff moved for leave to file her First Amended Complaint.
The defendants argue that the motion to amend should be denied due to unnecеssary delay in filing the motion. They contend that this case is similarly to Anderson v. USAir, Inc.,
Plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination with the Washington Area Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on or about August 29, 1986. Plaintiff’s Reply at 1-2. Plaintiff states that the delay in filing the motion to amend was duе to reliance on EEOC representatives that the EEOC would issue a finding “shortly”. Id. at 1-4. Plaintiff was entitled to request a notice of right to sue 180 days after filing a charge with the EEOC. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(a). It was not until December 6, 1989, that the plaintiff requested her notice of right to sue. Plaintiff’s Reply аt 4. Plaintiff waited over three years to file her notice of right to sue. Plaintiff did not inform the defendants or the Court that she intended to amend her complaint, or that the delay in the EEOC proceeding might require a need to amend the complaint. The Court agrees with the defendants that the delay was unreasonable.
The plaintiff statеs that the defendants would not be prejudiced because no additional discovery would be needed. The Court disagrees. The defendants would clearly have a right to conduct additional discovery in order to determine the basis of the additional claims. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a good reason for the delay in filing the motion to amend. The Court concludes that the defendants would be unduly prejudiced if thе motion to amend were granted. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the motiоn for leave to file a second amended complaint should be denied.
It is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied.
Notes
. The Second Amended Complaint sets forth statutory claims against the defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., for violations of the District of Columbia Human Rights Aсt of 1977, 2 D.C.Code Ann. § 1-2501 et seq., for violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and for violations of the Civil Rights Act оf 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Plaintiffs Memorandum In Support of Her Motion For Leave To File Her Second Amеnded Complaint (“Plaintiffs Memorandum") at 2-3. In addition, the Second Amended Complaint sets forth a third party beneficiary count, an intentional interference with contraсtual relations count, an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing сount, a promissory estoppel count, a civil conspiracy count, and a civil aiding and abetting count. Id. at 3-4.
. The First Amended Complaint sought to name Franki-Denys as a defendant, dismiss defendants Franki Foundation and Denys N.V., and to amend her § 1981 allegations. Plaintiffs Memorandum at 2.