With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Seros., Sec. Litig., 34 F.Supp.3d 298, 309 (S.D.N.Y.2014). Here, neither the complaint in the enforcement action nor the Consent Order include facts that show each of the Walter Individual Defendants acted with scienter. In fact, neither document mentions the Walter Individual Defendants. As a result, “the government investigation can be seen as one more piece of the puzzle, a series of circumstances that add up to a strong inference of scienter,” but will not, standing alone, support an inference of scienter. Washtenaw Cnty. Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 28 F.Supp.3d 93, 114-15 (D.Mass. 2014). There are no allegations showing that Defendants O’Brien, Dixon and Cauthen knew of the internet postings, consumer complaints, lawsuits, or the petition. See Mizzaro, 544 F.3d at 1253 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the presence of government

A: holding that pleadings could not be amended where no evidence offered during trial was outside the issues in the original complaint
B: 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
C: holding that a counterclaim  which appears as part of the defendants answer not as part of the plaintiffs complaint  cannot served as the basis for arising under jurisdiction
D: holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege scienter because in part the amended complaint affords no basis for inferring that the individual defendants would have heard about these whistleblower complaints during the class period
D.