new financing. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs did not plead sufficiently particularized facts demonstrating Deloitte was, inter alia, severely reckless in failing to issue the qualification, as required to sufficiently plead with particularity under the PSLRA. See Nathenson, 267 F.3d at 408. The AU requires an auditor to issue the qualification only if there is substantial doubt the entity will continue, and only after determining the company’s plan to deal with its problems would be ineffective. Again, Plaintiffs plead no facts demonstrating Deloitte was severely reckless in this regard. Plaintiffs never pleaded with specificity how, or why, Deloitte was tion to deny leave to amend is limited, leave to amend is not automatic. Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238, 254-55 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, there is a strong presumption
holding no abuse of discretion where plaintiffs failed multiple times to correct deficiencies in complaint and failed to show couh how they would correct them in a future filing holding that the presence of the correct address in the sworn affidavit could correct a typographical error in the warrant holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a third amended complaint where the plaintiff had already been given opportunities to amend and did not indicate what additional facts he could plead to correct the deficiencies in his complaint holding no abuse of discretion after plaintiff had three opportunities to correct any deficiencies in its 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