is an essential element of a cause of action of fraud, and this detrimental reliance must be pled with particularity. Learning Works, Inc. v. The Learning Annex, Inc., 830 F.2d 541, 547 (4th Cir.1987). Complaints that fail to meet these heightened pleading requirements are subject to dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 980 (4th Cir.1990). A court should hesitate to dismiss a complaint under Rule 9(b) if the court believes that “the defendant has been made aware of the particular circumstances for which she will have to prepare a defense at trial” and that the “plaintiff has substantial prediscovery evidence of those facts.” Harrison, 176 F.3d at 784; See also Dunn v. Borta, No. 03-1362, 2004 WL 1110424 (4th Cir. May 19, 2004) (<HOLDING>) and U.S. ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse
holding that a plaintiff may present unsubstantiated factual allegations on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint to show that the complaint should not have been dismissed holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed holding that fraud claims were wrongfully dismissed for insufficient particularity as they provided sufficient notice of the facts of the alleged misconduct holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well