concept when in fact Papa John's knew that it did not. Defendants assert that Papa John’s did not validate the trade areas in New York to ensure that the demographics and competitor sales were comparable to other. parts of the country where Papa John's franchises were successful. Defendants argue Papa John’s promised to give them full support in the form of marketing and training, and this never occurred. Further, Defendants argue that the requisite size of the restaurants, the signage, and the equipment all changed from what Papa John's initially represented, which inevitably increased the asserted costs. Defendants believe the restaurants closed because they could never generate profit. Defendants argue' that if they knew then what Papa John's had k F.Supp.2d 869, 872 (N.D.Ill.2004) (<HOLDING>); Wooton Enterprises, Inc. v. Subaru of Am.,
holding that a plaintiff must plead with specificity as to the statements or omissions considered to be fraudulent the speaker when and why the statements were made and an explanation of why they were fraudulent holding allegations that fraudulent statements were made during fourmonth period insufficient to satisfy rule 9b holding that pecuniary damages are essential to a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action holding that statements made prior to signing of lease with integration clause were not actionable in fraudulent misrepresentation holding as to a fraudulent misrepresentation claim under michigan law that the sixyear statute of limitations begins to run when the misrepresentation was perpetrated and not when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the misrepresentation