the facts alleged:... Although we draw any reasonable inferences available on the face of the complaint in the investors’ favor, we also must look to plausible, non-culpable explanations for the defendant’s conduct in evaluating an inference of scienter.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court must not scrutinize each of Plaintiffs’ allegations in isolation, but rather assess all of the allegations holistically. Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 326, 127 S.Ct: 2499. Finally, the “complaint must allege facts supporting a strong inference of scienter for each defendant with respect to each violation.” Mizzaro, 544 F.3d at 1238. Thus, the group pleading doctrine does not apply to the PSLRA’s scienter requirements. In re Sunbeam Sec. Litig., 89 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1341 (SD.Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>); Druskin, 299 F.Supp.2d at 1322 (same). As a
holding the pslra standard for pleading scienter is more stringent than the second circuits standard prior to the act and that motive and opportunity is not an independent basis to show defendants had scienter 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 the federal false claims act is an antifraud statute to which rule 9bs heightened pleading requirements apply holding that the group pleading doctrine did not survive the pslra because it cannot be reconciled with the pslras requirement that plaintiff state facts with particularity as to each alleged act or omission by the defendant holding that the group pleading doctrine survives the pslra as to rule 9bs particularity requirements but does not apply to the pslras scienter requirements