Further, "[c]laims alleging violations of the DTPA are subject to the requirements of Rule 9(b)." Patel v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 172 F.Supp.2d 821, 824-25 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (and cases cited therein). A comparison of Plaintiffs' DTPA claim in the Fourth Amended Complaint with its fraud claim reveals that the DTPA claim is predicated on the same misrepresentations and omissions as the fraud claim.

"[G]eneral allegations, which lump all defendants together failing to segregate the alleged wrongdoing of one from those of another cannot meet the requirements of Rule 9(b)." Patel v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 821, 824 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (quoting In re Urcarco Sec. Lit., 148 F.R.D. 561, 569 (N.D. Tex. 1993), aff'd sub nom. Melder v. Morris, 27 F.3d 1097 (5th Cir. 1994)).

Weidner v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , No. 4:13-CV-263, 2014 WL 8397281, at *5 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2014) ; Omni USA, Inc. v. Parker–Hannifin Corp. , 798 F.Supp.2d 831, 836 (S.D. Tex. 2011) ; Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins.Co., 608 F.Supp.2d 785, 800 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (It is well-established that "[c]laims alleging violations of the DTPA are subject to the requirements of Rule 9(b).") (quoting Patel v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. , 172 F. Supp. 2d 821, 824–25 (N.D. Tex. 2001) ). Notably, "[a]t a minimum, Rule 9(b) requires allegations of the particulars of time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby."

As with fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, "[c]laims alleging violations of the DTPA are subject to the requirements of Rule 9(b)." Patel v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 821, 825 (N.D. Tex. 2001); see, e.g., Lester v. Unitrin Safeguard Ins. Co., No. 4:20-CV-404-A, 2020 WL 4583839, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2020) (stating that courts "routinely apply Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard" to claims alleging violations of the DTPA); Lopez v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 197 F. Supp. 3d 944, 951 (S.D. Tex. 2016) ("In federal court, claims under the [DTPA] are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)."); Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 608 F. Supp. 2d 785, 800 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (dismissing plaintiff's DTPA claims for failing to comply with Rule 9(b)). While the language of Rule 9(b) refers specifically to fraud, "the requirements of [Rule 9(b)] apply to all cases where the gravamen of the claim is fraud even though the theory supporting the claim is not technically termed fraud."

General allegations that lump the defendants together, without segregating the alleged wrongdoing of one defendant from those of another, do not meet the requirements of Rule 9(b). Douglas v. Renola Equity Fund II, LLC, Civil Action No. 13-6192, 2014 WL 1050851, at *6 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2014); Goodarzi v. Hartzog, Civil Action No. H-12-2870, 2014 WL 722109, at *8 n.7 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2014); Guthrie v. Plains Res. Inc., No. 2:12 CV-1904-PM-KK, 2013 WL 2471670, at *8-9 (W.D. La. June 7, 2013); Parkcentral, 2010 WL 3119403, at *3, *10-11 (citing Patel v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 821, 824 (N.D. Tex. 2001)); Ergonomic Lighting Sys., Inc. v. CommercialPetroleum Equip./USALCO, No. SA-02-CA-0031 RF(NN), 2003 WL 22436101, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2003). Referring to the defendants collectively, "without distinguishing which entity or persons committed the various alleged fraudulent conduct," is generally insufficient.

Further, the heightened 9(b) standard applies to claims of deceptive trade practices under the DTPA. See, e.g., Simien v. C. R. Bard, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-131, 2020 WL 4922331, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020); Patel v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc., 172 F.Supp.2d 821, 825 (N.D. Tex. 2001); Lester v. Unitrin Safeguard Ins. Co., No. 4:20-CV-404-A, 2020 WL 4583839, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2020).

Further, “general allegations, which lump all defendants together failing to segregate the alleged wrongdoing of one from those of another cannot meet the requirements of Rule 9(b).” Patel v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 172 F.Supp.2d 821, 824 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (quoting In re Urcarco Sec. Lit., 148 F.R.D. 561, 569 (N.D. Tex. 1993), aff'd sub nom. Melder v. Morris, 27 F.3d 1097 (5th Cir. 1994)). “Put simply, Rule 9(b) requires ‘the who, what, when, where, and how' to be laid out” with respect to a fraud claim.

Abbey on Preston H.O.A. v. Admiral Ins. Co., No. 13-CV-102-N, 2013 WL 12137742, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 29, 2013); see Ranzy v. Extra Cash of Tex., Inc., No. 9-334, 2011 WL 6719881, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2011) ("There are cases that have applied Rule 9(b)'s heightened specificity requirements to claims under the DTPA, but in those cases the underlying claims involved fraud."); Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 608 F. Supp. 2d 785, 800 (N.D. Tex. 2009) ("It is well-established that 'claims alleging violations of the DTPA are subject to the requirements of Rule 9(b).'" (alteration omitted) (quoting Patel v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 821, 824-25 (N.D. Tex. 2001))). Polar Pro alleges that FrogSlayer made fraudulent statements before the Agreement was executed, during development, and after FrogSlayer admitted that the project was delayed.

Further, "general allegations, which lump all defendants together failing to segregate the alleged wrongdoing of one from those of another cannot meet the requirements of Rule 9(b)." Patel v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 821, 824 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (quoting In re Urcarco Sec. Lit., 148 F.R.D. 561, 569 (N.D. Tex. 1993), aff'd sub nom. Melder v. Morris, 27 F.3d 1097 (5th Cir. 1994)).

The pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) apply to any allegations of fraud, including those brought under Texas statutes such as the DTPA. Lone Star Ladies Inv. Club v. Schlotzky's, Inc., 238 F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2001); see, e.g., SHS Inv. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 798 F. Supp. 2d 811, 815 (S.D. Tex. 2011); Patel v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 821, 825 (N.D. Tex. 2001); Frith v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 9 F. Supp. 2d 734, 742 (S.D. Tex. 1998).