inflammation to treating a number of ailments, including Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic brain injury, ulcers, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis ... even though Anatabloc cannot, in fact, treat those diseases.” (Id. ¶¶ 15,19.) -The court agrees with Defendants that these allegations in Plaintiffs complaint are insufficient under Rule 9(b) because they do not allege specific misrepresentations made by 16 individual Defendants. Plaintiffs complaint is replete with allegations recounting vague, nonspecific statements made by “Defendants” about Anata-bloc’s supposed benefits. But Plaintiff has not identified a single actual misrepresentation that was communicated to Plaintiff, much less which Defendant made it. See Dubicz v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 377 F.3d 787, 794-95 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Further, Plaintiff cannot lump all Defendants
holding that a complaint satisfied rule 9b because it identified the misrepresentations at issue the specific dates on which they were made and the specific persons responsible for making them holding that specific details about time place and substance of the fraud satisfy rule 9b holding that a plaintiff satisfied rule 9b by pleading which machines were the subject of alleged fraudulent transactions and the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentations holding that documents affixed to complaint that contained alleged misrepresentations satisfied rule 9b holding that a party must have made a directed verdict motion at trial on the specific issue which is the basis of the jnov