Sopurkh (¶ 53.1), Kartar (¶ 53.4) and Lambert and SWW. (¶¶ 53.5, 55, 55.2). As to the remaining defendants, however, the complaint includes only broad and conclusory allegations regarding the circumstances of fraud, without supporting particularized detail. Kg., ¶¶ 52.1, 63.1, 53.2, 53.3, 53.6, 54, 56.2, 57, 57.1, 57.2, 57.3. For example, the complaint alleges the defendants “falsely and fraudulently repi’esented to BIBIJI that she was not on the Board of Managers of UI and had no management authority at UI.” ¶ 52.1. It further alleges that “[s]aid Defendants adopted and ratified the acts of the others in fraudulently exelud[ing] BIBIJI from participating in the management of UI.” ¶ 52.1. These allegations lack the particularized detail Rule 9(b) demands. See Ebeid, 616 F.3d at 1000 (<HOLDING>); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4
holding a complaint failed to satisfy rule 9b where the allegations were lacking in detail holding a complaints general allegations lacking any details or facts setting out the who what when where and how of the allegedly fraudulent conductwere insufficient to satisfy rule 9b internal quotation marks omitted holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b holding that specific details about time place and substance of the fraud satisfy rule 9b holding allegations that fraudulent statements were made during fourmonth period insufficient to satisfy rule 9b