a class action, on behalf of all persons who purchased Schlotz-sky’s stock during the relevant period. That class would', presumably, include any named plaintiffs who did not expressly sign on to the Motion to Amend. 7 . Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). 8 . Id. 9 . See, e.g., Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United States Co., 195 F.3d 765, 771 (5th Cir.1999). 10 . See, e.g., Rolf v. City of San Antonio, 77 F.3d 823, 828-29 (5th Cir.1996) ("The district court’s order does not state its reasons for denying leave. Our review of the record reveals no substantial reason to deny leave to amend. Appellants should have been granted leave to file an amended complaint.”); Halbert v. City of Sherman, 33 F.3d 526, 529-30 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Compare Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc.,
holding that delay of eleven months did not justify denial of leave to amend holding that futility is among the reasons for denying leave to amend a complaint holding that denial of leave to amend is error in the absence of justifying reasons holding that a justifying reason must be apparent for denial of a motion to amend recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint