of notice pleading.”). For instance, the heightened pleading requirement of Rule 9(b) “may be relaxed somewhat if the defendant controls information required for proper pleading.” ilure to provide further details regarding any alleged fraudulent concealment was the result of the defendants’ control of the relevant information. She does in her subsequent brief, however, attribute her failure to identify which of the defendants was her employer to the defendants’ superior knowledge; but even this justification, if extended to her allegation of fraudulent concealment, cannot save her Spartanly worded claim. In those cases where the defendant controls information required for proper pleading, “the complaint must still ‘adduce specific facts supporting a .2d 1223, 1240-41 (N.D.Ala.2001) (<HOLDING>). In fact, if the damages sought by Morrow are
holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs wage and invasionofprivacy claims holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim holding flsa enforcement scheme preempted contract negligence and fraud claims holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs fraud claim holding under flsa