. The Estate does argue that "[tlhere clearly existed an issue [as to] whether [Dr.] Strobel had indeed been provided a copy of the report. There is no issue that the failure to follow-up on such a report is improper as [Dr. Strobel] admitted as much in his deposition." But Dr. Strobel did not admit that it would be "improper'' not to examine a report he had received; he merely stated that he would "normally" read these types of reports. 18 . See Glover v. Ranney, 314 P.3d 535, 545 (Alaska 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 . Cf. Bush v. Elkins, 342 P.3d 1245, 1250-52 (Alaska 2015) (analyzing a superior court's denial of a motion for leave to amend after the plaintiff had been dismissed from the case). 20 . See, e.g., Miller v. Safeway, Inc., 102 P.3d 282, 294 (Alaska 2004) (<HOLDING>). 21 . See Glover, 314 P.3d at
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 a court may deny leave to amend when the moving party had the opportunity to amend earlier but waited after judgment to do so holding that futility is among the reasons for denying leave to amend a complaint holding that denial of leave to amend is error in the absence of justifying reasons recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint