With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". forward an alternative theory that the rules stem from unlawful "hub-and-spoke” conspiracies. See Stoumbos Prop. Compl. ¶ 53. Because we conclude that the proposed amended complaints allege a horizontal conspiracy, we do not reach the question of whether Plaintiffs’ alternative theories are tenable. 4 . As futility was the sole ground articulated by the District Court for denying the Plaintiffs’ motions to amend the judgment and to file amended complaints, we see no reason that the motions should not be granted on remand. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 181-82, 83 S.Ct. 227 (explaining that if "the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits”); Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 672-73 (<HOLDING>). But we leave this discretionary decision to

A: recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss
B: holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired
C: recognizing that it may be appropriate to convert a judgment that dismisses a case into an order dismissing a complaint for statute of limitations purpose
D: holding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is a final appealable order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the  case internal quotation marks omitted
C.