activities are sufficient, mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient”). See also Walling v. Beverly Enters., 476 F.2d 393, 397 (9th Cir.1973) (concluding that allegations stating the time, place, and nature of allegedly fraudulent activities meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement). Rule 9(b) “does not require nor make legitimate the pleading of detailed evidentiary matter,” however. All that is necessary is “identification of the circumstances constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations.” Walling, 476 F.2d at 397 (alleging in conclusory fashion that defendant’s conduct was fraudulent was not sufficient under Rule 9(b)). See also Miscellaneous Serv. Workers Local #427 v. Philco-Ford Corp., 661 F.2d 776, 782 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). 3. Whether Plaintiffs Lack Standing Under
holding that rule does not apply where defendant made false representations holding that specific details about time place and substance of the fraud satisfy rule 9b holding that pleading fraud with particularity in this circuit requires time place and contents of the false representations as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what that person obtained thereby  holding that rule 9b requires a pleader to set forth the time place and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation holding that the offense requires that the return be false as to a material matter