alleged Defendants’ affirmative acts of concealment, Plaintiffs must also allege that this concealment was successful — that is, that as a result of Defendants’ concealment, Plaintiffs failed to discover the existence of the antitrust claim. In the present case, Plaintiffs allege that they “could not have discovered” the claim any earlier because “the violations were fraudulently concealed by defendants.” (Pis.’ Second Am. Compl. ¶ 92.) Such a claim is circular, and necessarily relies on the success of the concealment allegations. As this Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to properly allege affirmative acts of concealment by Defendants, Plaintiffs may not rely on those allegations to support this element of their claim. See In re Aluminum Phosphide, 905 F.Supp. at 1471 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the second element of a fraudulent
holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim holding insufficient the plaintiffs generic allegations holding that conclusory allegations in an affidavit have no probative value and a nonmoving party cannot rely on the eonclusory allegations to avoid summary judgment holding that eonclusory allegations that plaintiffs were unaware of the conspiracy is insufficient holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on  2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit