Dismiss. It is equally clear that the December 27, 2007 order, dismissing the remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims based on them failure comply with the court order directing them to provide a more definite statement, also functioned as a resolution on the merits, as nothing in the order indicated otherwise. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal for failure to comply with a court order and specifying that “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule — except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 — operates as an adjudication on the merits”); cf. Karim-Panahi v. U.S. Congress, Senate & House of Representatives, 105 Fed.Appx. 270, 273-74 (D.C.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). In short, because this case involves the same
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiffs third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to abide by rule 8 which requires that each averment of a pleading be simple concise and direct holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court