073781P.pdf   03/17/2009  United States exrel Henry Roop  v.  Hypoguard USA
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  07-3781
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with John R. Gibson and Murphy,
   Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - False Claims Act. District court did not abuse its discretion
   in denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint after he conceded
   his initial complaint failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement
   and failed to show how his proposed amendments would satisfy the rule;
   district courts in this circuit have considerable discretion to deny a post-
   judgment motion for leave to amend because such motions are
   disfavored, but they may not ignore the Rule 15(a)(2) considerations that
   favor affording parties an opportunity to test their claims on the merits,
   particularly when a fraud complaint has been dismissed for failure to
   comply with the pleadings requirements of Rule 9(b); here, plaintiff
   failed to show how his new complaint would cure the deficiencies
   previously noted, and the district court was not required to ferret out well-
   hidden changes in a post-judgment amended pleading without guidance
   from plaintiff; in any event, the new complaint would not have satisfied
   the previously-noted defects.