Opinion ID: 819233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' Leave to Amend Request

Text: As stated above, in their third point of error, Plaintiffs challenge the district court's failure to allow a third amended complaint and move us to grant them leave to replead [the] allegations regarding AMAG's misrepresentations on its website. Plaintiffs included their request for another attempt at making a plausible claim on this front within their submission opposing dismissal, but failed to provide the district court with the reasons supporting their request and with the substance of possible amendments. Instead, Plaintiffs relied on four boilerplate sentences stating the well-settled freely given standard under which a request for leave to amend is generally analyzed. The district court never addressed the request, and Plaintiffs believe that that constituted a reversible error. Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend had one basic problem: it failed to abide by our oft-quoted maxim that litigants should not seriously expect to obtain a remedy without doing the necessary leg work first. See, e.g., United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990)(It is not enough to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones.). Not much is needed to satisfy this rule. decide the issue now, and because the case will continue onward at the district court level regardless of how the issue is decided, we see no reason to entertain it here. -28- Litigants simply have to set forth the factual and legal predicate for the remedy sought. See Rodríguez-Machado v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d