to the Plaintiff and Decedent. Accordingly, this count is dismissed. D. Count Y Violation of District of Columbia Deceptive Trade Practices Statute Plaintiff claims Defendant has violated unspecified portions of District of Columbia’s deceptive trade practices statute. This claim is analogous to the fraud by nondisclosure claim. Although there are no District of Columbia cases in which Rule 9(b) has been applied to the provisions triggered by this case in deceptive trade practices actions, courts in other jurisdictions analyzing similar provisions of similar statutes have concluded that allegations supporting the claim “must be pleaded with particularity because they are akin to allegations of fraud.” Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 884 F.Supp. 1515, 1524 & n. 8 (D.Kan.1995) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); see also Duran v. Clover
holding that relators failure to meet the particularity requirements of rule 9b did not bar his claim where the relator was a former employee of the defendants and lacked access to records and documents in the possession of the defendants that contained information necessary to plead with particularity holding that a rule 10b5 claim must be stated with particularity holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement holding that the plaintiffs failed to meet rule 9bs particularity requirement where they did not present any evidence at an individualized transactional level holding that plaintiff failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity but stating that party may be entitled to lenient application of rule 9b where information is in possession of corporate defendant