Warren, 353 F.3d at 39; Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. B. Legal Standard for a Rule 9(b) Motion to Dismiss Rule 9(b) requires that a pleader state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement ensures that the opponent has notice of the claim, prevents attacks on his reputation where the claim for fraud is unsubstantiated, and protects him against a strike suit brought solely for its settlement value. Shields v. Wash. Bancorp., 1992 WL 88004, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 1992); see also Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1279 n. 3 (observing that Rule 9(b) aims to prevent a claim filed as a “pretext for the discovery of unknown wrongs” (citation omitted)); Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merch. Services, 20 F.3d 771, 777-78 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus.,
holding that when there are multiple defendants rule 9b requires that a plaintiff allege facts specifying each defendants contribution to the fraud holding that plaintiff should identify when possible the role of individual defendants in the alleged fraud recognizing that rule 9b is largely designed to give each opponent notice of his purported role in the alleged fraud holding that rule 9b applies to fca holding that specific details about time place and substance of the fraud satisfy rule 9b