Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the proposed amendment or attach a copy of the proposed amendment.” See Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir.1999). This district's local rules require that a "motion for leave to file an amended pleading shall be accompanied by an original of the proposed amended pleading as amended.” LCvR 7(i). The defendants have met this requirement by lodging a pr uments that stem from the plaintiff’s assertion that the DOT is not the proper defendant to this action. 6 . Furthermore, the fact that res judicata “belongs to courts as well as to litigants” renders moot the plaintiffs argument that the defendants are barred from asserting res judicata here because they failed to do so in the Court of Federal Claims action. Stanton v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72, 77 (D.C.Cir.1997) 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that in the interest of judicial economy res judicata may properly be raised by a district court sua sponte particularly where both actions are brought in the courts of the same district (B) holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal (C) holding lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is fundamental error that this court may properly raise and recognize sua sponte (D) holding that a court can raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte in order to affirm a grant of summary judgment (E) holding that a district court has the discretion to raise a  2254 timeliness consideration sua sponte
Output (English): holding that a district court has the discretion to raise a  2254 timeliness consideration sua sponte