and Blackmon testified that he understood that change. We will not attribute a “childlike simplicity” to i officer, Ken Vassey, regarding the possibility of an IPO is, as a matter of law, not material. v. Nexity’s “Side Deal” with Institutional Investors Finally, Blackmon argues that he presented substantial evidence indicating that Nexity offered a “side deal” to potential institutional investors to entice them to purchase stock. He argues (1) that the “side deal” was not offered to individual investors and (2) that the POM and the supplement did not disclose the “side deal.” Blackmon bases this argument on the new factual allegation in the stricken amended complaint. The trial court properly did not address this argument, and we do not address it. See Kaplan, 49 F.3d at 1370 (<HOLDING>). IV. Conclusion The trial court did not exceed
holding that the trial court properly refused defendants instruction because it invaded the province of the jury holding that the trial court properly struck the amended complaint when the plaintiff offered no reason to refute the trial courts finding that the new allegations in the amended complaint were based on facts the plaintiff had known since the beginning of the action holding leave to amend was properly denied where the relator had previously filed two amended complaints holding that the trial court properly refused to consider allegations in the amended complaints that were disallowed holding that underlying complaints filed by several plaintiffs all contained express allegations of property damage and that because all complaints arose from the same set of circumstances the allegations in any single complaint can be inferred in the other complaints