With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “does not require ‘any particularity in connection with an averment of intent, knowledge or condition of the mind.’ ” In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.Bd 1541, 1547 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (quoting Walling v. Beverly Enters., 476 F.2d 393, 397 (9th Cir.1973)) (emphasis in GlenFed); Gottreich v. San Francisco Inv. Corp., 552 F.2d 866, 866-67 (9th Cir.1977) (sustaining con-clusory allegation that defendants “knew” their representations were false as sufficient to plead element of fraudulent intent). Rules 8(a) and 9(b) therefore preclude district courts from applying a heightened pleading for allegations of malice or fraudulent intent. Cf. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993) (<HOLDING>). In federal court, a plaintiff may include a

A: holding that federal courts could not impose heightened pleading requirement in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability because such requirement conflicted with rule 8
B: holding that rule 9bs heightened pleading requirement applies to allegations of mail and wire fraud used as predicate acts for a rico claim
C: 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
D: holding that district court could not apply florida statute requiring heightened pleading for punitive damages because statute conflicted with lenient requirements of rules 8 and 9b
A.