With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This case is CLOSED. 1 . Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2005 and was titled Complaint and Jury Demand. PL Res. at 1, n. 1. The title was an inadvertent clerical error and should have read Amended Complaint and Jury Demand. Id. 2 . FIU is a public university funded by the State of Florida 3 . Plaintiff has attempted to argue that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 cases. Plaintiff is incorrect. The law is clear that with the exception of § 1983 cases for municipal liability there is a heightened pleading standard in § 1983 cases. See GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (11th Cir.1998); cf. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 4 . On or about May 13, 2005 Plaintiff filed

A: recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard
B: holding that a court may not apply a heightened pleading standard more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of rule 8 in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under  1983
C: holding that federal courts could not impose heightened pleading requirement in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability because such requirement conflicted with rule 8
D: holding that the fact that federal rule of civil procedure 9b requires a heightened pleading standard for some claims but not for a section 1983 claim against a municipality means that the rules do not require a heightened pleading standard for such a claim
B.