Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in failing to determine Amresco did not have a reasonable turnaround plan. In addition, as the district court stated, general allegations that Deloitte was somehow involved in the Duke & Long loan do not establish Deloitte’s liability, just as the allegations fail to establish liability for the Individual Defendants. D. Finally, Plaintiffs maintain that, even if their SAC was properly dismissed, they should have been granted leave to amend (to permit a fourth try). The district court did not abuse its discretion in not permitting another amended complaint. Leave to amend should be freely granted when justice requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). District courts, however, have discretion to manage their docket. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, although a district court’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea (B) holding no abuse of discretion after plaintiff had three opportunities to correct any deficiencies in its complaint (C) holding no abuse of discretion where plaintiffs failed multiple times to correct deficiencies in complaint and failed to show couh how they would correct them in a future filing (D) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a third amended complaint where the plaintiff had already been given opportunities to amend and did not indicate what additional facts he could plead to correct the deficiencies in his complaint (E) holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion
Output (English): holding no abuse of discretion where plaintiffs failed multiple times to correct deficiencies in complaint and failed to show couh how they would correct them in a future filing