in something more like Rule 16(b) terms, that it would be “easier to manage from the Court’s point of view. We’re not going to permit any further amendment to this complaint.” As this excerpt makes clear, the record supports PKI’s theory that the District Court refused the amendment because of case management concerns, both in terms of the course the case might follow, and a perceived need for fidelity to the court’s prior management plan, which did not contemplate adding PRD as a party (and arguably included a clear order not to do so). But these reasons are not among those justifying a refusal of leave to amend. Moreover, PKI was dismissed ivith prejudice, which is a severe and disfavored remedy. See, e.g., ICON Group, Inc. v. Mahogany Run Dev. Corp., 829 F.2d 473, 477 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 677
holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made holding that dismissal of a claim after the plaintiff made a good faith but unsuccessful effort to comply with an order to amend was inappropriate holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order