Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (D.D.C.1987), aff'd, 848 F.2d 1283 (D.C.Cir.1988) (explaining that the pleader must allege with particularity the alleged fraud to survive a Rule 9(b) motion). Finally, “[c]onclusory allegations that a defendant’s actions were fraudulent and deceptive are not sufficient to satisfy 9(b).” Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l Corp., 217 F.Supp.2d 59, 73 (D.D.C.2002); see also In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props. Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 216 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that courts are not required to credit a complaint’s bald assertions, legal conclusions or “legal conclusions draped in the guise of factual allegations”) Where a pleading does not satisfy the heightened requirements of Rule 9(b), the court should freely grant leave to amend. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court should reserve 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made (B) holding that a district court should grant leave to amend unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts (C) holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court (D) recognizing that courts almost always grant leave to amend to cure deficiencies in pleading fraud (E) recognizing that courts freely grant pro se litigants leave to amend
Output (English): holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court