to hon- or its promise to keep them in “good hands” fails because, under California law, this is not a statement of fact and therefore not actionable for misrepresentation. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . The Court takes the following statement of facts from the parties' briefs and Plaintiffs Complaint. The Court expresses no view on the accuracy of those facts contained in the briefs. The Court assumes, for the purposes of this motion, that the facts alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint are true. 2 . Plaintiffs also argue that their complaint contains enough information so that Allstate "understands the allegations and does have the ability to answer them.” (Opp. at 4). This sort of argument lacks merit. It was specifically rejected by the Ninth Circuit in In re GlenFed. See 42 F.3d at 1547 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). As
holding that a person alleging a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights must do more than simply aver that a conspiracy existed holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity 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 rule 9b requires more of plaintiffs complaint than simply giving defendants notice it imposes an additional obligation on plaintiffs the statement of the claim must also aver with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement