(2) the County has failed to plead its FSIPA claim — grounded in fraud — with particularity. However, because the Court finds that dismissal is warranted due to the fact that the County did not purchase the securities from Wachovia, Wachovia was not liable as an agent, and FSIPA does not provide a cause of action for "holding” a security or for the mere rendering of investment advice, the Court need not address these two additional arguments for dismissal. 2 . Excess Risk Underwriters, Inc. v. Lafayette Life Ins. Co., 208 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1317 (S.D.Fla.2002) (dismissing a breach of fiduciary duty claim because the allegations for the breach of fiduciary duty claim were not independent of the parties’ contracts); Detwiler v. Bank of Central Fla., 736 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). Detwiler does not address the Florida Supreme
holding that a cause of action for breach of a purported implied contract would require interpretation of a cba and the totality of the parties contractual relationship holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach