hearer’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on the truth; (8) his right to rely thereon; (9) his consequent and proximate injury. Nichols v. Tri-State Brick & Tile Co., 608 So.2d 324, 330 (Miss.1992) (quoting Whit-tington v. Whittington, 535 So.2d 573, 585 (Miss.1988)). Furthermore, Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that the Plaintiff plead these matters “with particularity.” Plaintiffs argue that the allegations in ¶¶ 18 and 20-24 of the Second Amended Complaint plead the elements of fraud with sufficient particularity. Although Plaintiffs’ allegations do track the language of the elements of fraud, the Court finds that the allegations fall short of the requisite particularity. See Williams v. WMX Technologies, Inc., 112 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Even if Plaintiffs have pled fraud with
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 a state was embraced within the meaning of the word person  where the word person was defined as meaning and including a partnership association company or corporation as well as a natural person 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 as to each predicate act the plaintiff must allege the time place and contents of the misrepresentations holding that a person cannot reasonably rely on a misrepresentation when the contents of a written instrument contradict the alleged misrepresentation