Plaintiffs are consumers who allege Strange Honey made fraudulent claims about its products. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against all but one defendant for pleading fraud-based claims without the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and it then denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. After plaintiffs appealed, the district court formally dismissed the remaining defendant and entered final judgment. At issue is whether we possess jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ appeal, and, if so, whether the district court correctly granted the motions to dismiss and denied the motion for leave to amend. Because we answer both questions in the affirmative, we affirm the district court’s judgment.