With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". . 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

A: recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint
B: 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
C: holding that futility is among the reasons for denying leave to amend a complaint
D: 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
A.