With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1100-1101 (6th Cir.2010) (setting forth requirements for pleading Michigan law fraud claim with particularity). Ram argues on appeal that if indeed its allegations of fraud are not stated with sufficient particularity, it should be given permission to amend its complaint. The record from the district court shows that Ram had already submitted an amended complaint, and that it did so after ADT had moved for judgment on the pleadings, in part on the argument that Ram had failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity. Given that Ram had notice, before appealing to this Court, that its pleadings may have been deficient, we are not inclined at this point to give Ram an additional opportunity to amend. Cf. Roskam Baking Co. v. Lanham Machinery Co., 288 F.3d 895, 906 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Ram’s only allegation of fraud

A: holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay
B: holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint
C: holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint
D: holding that appellate court should overturn a district courts denial of a motion to amend a complaint only if the district court has abused its discretion
C.