It is not the Court’s function to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial; instead, the Court must merely determine whether the complaint is legally sufficient. Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir.1985). Thus, the Court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs. Koppel v. 4987 Corp., 167 F.3d 125, 127 (2d Cir.1999); Connell v. Signoracci, 153 F.3d 74 (2d Cir.1998); LaBounty v. Adler, 933 F.2d 121, 123 (2d Cir.1991). 2. Rule 9(b) Rule 9(b) provides that “[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b). See also Plount v. American Home Assurance Co., Inc., 668 F.Supp. 204, 206 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has held that allegations
holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that the concerns that require fraud to be pleaded with particularity are even more urgent in a civil rico action holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity holding that because civil rico is penal in nature illinois twoyear statute of limitations for actions based on a statutory penalty applies to civil rico claims