AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2009, upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 64) for leave to file an amended complaint, wherein plaintiffs request permission to raise a claim for breach of contract,*fn1 and it appearing that plaintiffs are seeking to add an entirely new cause of action, that fact discovery in the above- captioned matter closed on December 1, 2008, (see Doc. 51), and that defendants filed a motion (Doc. 52) for summary judgment on January 5, 2009, and the court concluding that plaintiffs have delayed in seeking the requested amendment for in excess of two years,*fn2 that allowing amendment at this juncture would require additional fact discovery and briefing on summary judgment, and that defendants would suffer undue prejudice therefrom, see Howze v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 750 F.2d 1208, 1212 (3d Cir. 1984) ("[T]he touchstone [of the amendment inquiry] is whether the non-moving party will be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed."); see also Panetta v. SAP Am. Inc., 294 F. App'x 715, 718 (3d Cir. 2009) (rejecting motion to amend when movant sought to add a new claim the assertion of which would require the court to reopen discovery and the defendants to "repeat processes that were already complete"); Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001) (recognizing that courts should consider "whether allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defend against new facts or new theories"); Josey v. John R. Hollingsworth Corp., 996 F.2d 632, 642 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that movant "should have moved to amend his pleadings during discovery" and that the attempt to amend "after the close of discovery would prejudice the defendant"), it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 64) to amend is DENIED.