acts of fraud, she must satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b) twice. See Emery II, 134 F.3d at 1323. Ms. Goren’s amended complaint fails to allege a “pattern of racketeering activity” with sufficient particularity to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b). In fact, Ms. Goren’s attempt to allege a “pattern of racketeering activity” fails on several fronts. The first and most glaring deficiency in the amended complaint is its failure to allege two predicate acts. The amended complaint alleges only one fraudulent transaction — the sale of two bottles of “Essential Minerals” to Ms. Goren. This is simply not enough to state a claim under § 1962(c). Indeed, we have repeatedly held that a plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that “defendants” also defrauded unidentifi 918, 923 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because the single sale to Ms. Goren is the
holding that unspecified allegations that other companies were defrauded by use of the mails in the same manner as plaintiff did not satisfy particularity requirement of rule 9b holding a complaint failed to satisfy rule 9b where the allegations were lacking in detail holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity holding allegations that fraudulent statements were made during fourmonth period insufficient to satisfy rule 9b holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement