Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
argument that first-filed qui tam complaints must meet a heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) in order to bar later-filed complaints. C. Dismissal with Prejudice Batiste argues that because Zahara’s complaint was dismissed before Batiste’s complaint was dismissed, his complaint should not have been dismissed with prejudice (implying that Batiste would like the opportunity to amend his complaint and bring this case again). Batiste, however, waived this argument. Zahara was dismissed eighteen months prior to the Batiste dismissal. During that time, Batiste never asked for leave to amend his complaint in the district court; thus, he has waived his opportunity to file a new suit on these same grounds now. See Confederate Mem’l Ass'n v. Hines, 995 F.2d 295, 299 (D.C.Cir.1993) . III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made
C. holding that although district courts have discretion to deny leave to amend they may only do so for a substantial reason
D. recognizing that although leave to amend generally should be freely granted that decision is left to the district courts discretion and as in the present case not only was there no abuse of discretion it appears that appellants never properly requested an opportunity to amend in the district court
E. holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.