fiduciary duty or breach of contract, which, without more, cannot be converted into a fraud claim under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Id. Pross is analogous to this case. Plaintiffs have not alleged facts suggesting that Mr. Pickett’s conduct involved any “element of deception.” Notably, plaintiffs have not alleged that Mr. Pickett had anything to gain financially, that he was churning plaintiffs’ accounts, or that he intended to benefit by contravening the terms of the brokerage contracts. Cf. Mihura v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc., 619 F.2d 814, 821 (9th Cir.1980) (recognizing that churning an account to increase commissions violates the Securities Act). Plaintiffs have not alleged ■ that Mr. Pickett promised to repurchase account assets, but then failed to do so. Cf. Kayne, 703 F.Supp. at 1336 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have not alleged that Mr. Pickett
holding that broker owed no fiduciary duty to client as a matter of law holding that a securities fraud claim was properly pled where a broker falsely assured his client that he would cancel unauthorized trades holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error