Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, § 1487 (1990 & Supp.1997); here the district court never intimated a concern either with bad faith or with prejudice. Alternatively, C&W might be arguing that the district court’s reference to the “entire lengthy record” is an allusion to our suggestion in Firestone, following Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, that a plaintiffs failure to cure a defect in its complaint after repeated amendments is at some point sufficient to warrant denying it leave to amend yet again. But we Ml not infer such an acute point from such an oblique reference— if it is a reference at all — particularly in light of the policy in favor of hearing cases on their merits. See, e.g., Poloron Prods., Inc. v. Lybrand Ross Bros. & Montgomery, 72 F.R.D. 556, 561 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (<HOLDING>); Rosen v. TRW, Inc., 979 F.2d 191, 194 (11th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs five previous attempts to state cognizable claim did not preclude amendment because federal rules suggest artless drafting of a complaint should not allow for the artful dodging of a claim (B) holding claim is cognizable (C) holding that plaintiffs complaint did not invoke federal courts arising under jurisdiction because it put forth alternate state and federal policies to support its state law claim (D) holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act (E) holding claim is not cognizable
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs complaint did not invoke federal courts arising under jurisdiction because it put forth alternate state and federal policies to support its state law claim