submitted to the Counterclaim Defendants [sic]:
SIMKE002 . . . .
(Id. ¶ 19 (listing, by identification code, seventeen total reimbursement requests) (emphasis
added and footnote omitted)). Although this averment does not itemize which procedures were
not performed, it does identify both the reimbursement request at issue (i.e., the specific billing
code) and the alleged fraudulent nature of that request (i.e., that the requests sought
reimbursement for medical procedures that were not performed). See Seville, 742 F.2d at 791
(holding, in case involving fraud in the sale of equipment, that exhibits detailing “which pieces
of equipment were the subject of which alleged fraudulent transaction” satisfied Rule 9(b) even
though the complaint did “not describe the precise words used” in the purported
misrepresentation). In addition to paragraph nineteen, paragraph twenty-five lists four patients
who allegedly received unnecessary treatment.6 As with those patients listed in paragraph
nineteen, State Farm has averred with particularity the billing number and the purported
fraudulent misrepresentation contained therein for all four patients listed in paragraph twenty-
In connection with these averments, State Farm also asserts that counterclaim-defendants
each produced or directed the production of the documents submitted to State Farm.
This allegation links each of the individual
6 Three of the four patients listed in paragraph twenty-five are also listed in paragraph nineteen, but patient “SOUMA001,” who allegedly received unnecessary left arm treatment, is not.