of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 570, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (“[Standing is to be determined as of the commencement of suit.”); Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1275 (11th Cir.2003) (“Article III standing must be determined as of the time at which the plaintiffs complaint is filed.”); MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co., 212 F.Supp.3d 1250, 1258 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (dismissing a similar claim for lack of standing where Plaintiff did not establish standing until five months after the suit was filed). Here, the original Plaintiffs have failed to show that they have standing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs lack standing to amend the complaint to add new Plaintiffs who do have standing. Summit Office Park, Inc., 639 F.2d at 1281 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ addition of MSP
holding that an order denying a  522f motion is final because it ends the litigation on the merits holding that denial of leave to amend is error in the absence of justifying reasons holding that state court chancellors denial of leave to amend and the failure of plaintiffs to appeal the denial resulted in a final judgment on the issue and precluded relitigation of the matter in federal court 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 the purpose of rule 15 was not frustrated by the district courts denial of leave to amend because the intent of the rule is to assist the disposition of litigation on the merits of the case rather than have pleadings become ends in themselves