opined that “it is hardly error for a district court to enter final judgment after granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when the plaintiff has not properly requested leave to amend its complaint.” Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d Cir.2007). The interaction between Phillips and Fletcher-Harlee Corp. presents an interesting question but one that we need not resolve on this appeal. Guirguis filed two motions for reconsideration of the District Court’s Twombly holding, arguing that his complaint “is not insufficient in its allegations.” (Appellee’s Supplemental App. at 4, 9.) These motions never sought leave to amend and instead revealed an intent to stand on the complaint. See Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 192-93 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Having expressed a desire to adhere to his
holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made holding that plaintiff elected to stand on complaint by failing to amend within specified time period holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order 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 holding that a plaintiff elected to stand on her complaint by repeatedly asserting the validity of her averments and by failing to seek leave to amend following dismissal