Township, 601 F. Supp. 1086 (E.D. Pa. 1984).
I turn now to defendant's claim that the plaintiffs have not set out their claims with sufficient particularity as is required under Rule 9(b) and 12(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Except for the ambiguity in paragraph 21 of plaintiffs' complaint pertaining to the time plaintiffs learned or should have learned of the fraud, which I addressed above, I do not find the complaint vague or ambiguous. Conversely, it is sufficiently particular to place defendants on notice of the fraud that they are to defend against (see the alleged facts, supra). Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require particularity to the degree so as to supplant general discovery methods. Hagstrom v. Breutman, 572 F. Supp. 692 (N.D. Ill. 1983). Here plaintiffs put defendants on notice as to the general time period, the nature of the discussions which took place between the parties, and the grounds upon which plaintiffs' action is based. Although the plaintiffs could have provided more information, I find that the complaint, except for paragraph 21, meets the requirement of Rule 9(b) and 12(e). Accordingly, plaintiffs will be required to provide a more definite statement as to paragraph 21.
Counts IV and V of plaintiffs' complaint concern common law fraud and breach of contract, respectively. Defendant seeks dismissal of these two counts asserting that since the plaintiffs have failed to set out a claim under the federal statutes alleged in counts I through III, the court must dismiss the state claims. Although I have dismissed count III, I have not dismissed counts I and II, thus I may still exercise pendent jurisdiction. However, I need not rule, at this time, as to whether or not I will exercise pendent jurisdiction. Thus counts IV and V will not be dismissed.
Last, I must address defendant's request for attorney's fees. Defendant has not brought to the court's attention any valid reasons why he is entitled to attorney's fees. Furthermore, I do not find it proper in the matter before me to grant defendant his attorney's fees for making the instant motion. The defendant's motion for attorney's fees will be denied.
An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 1985, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Hopkins' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint is DENIED as to Counts I, II, IV and V.
2. Defendant Hopkins' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint is GRANTED as to Count III.
3. Defendant Hopkins' motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiffs are required to amend their pleadings, and to state with particularity the time when plaintiffs learned of the alleged fraud, or at what time the plaintiffs should have learned of the fraud, by exercising due diligence.
5. Defendant Hopkins' motion for attorney's fees is DENIED.
6. Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint is DISMISSED AS MOOT.