Burger

ORDER

I

The basic facts of this case are simple, although disputed. Counterdefendants were involved in purchasing insurance and insurance brokerage services from coun-terclaimants on behalf of a number of projects. Counterdefendants claim that they were secretly overcharged. Counterclaim-ants have a different story, namely that counterdefendants agreed to the extra charges and that counterdefendants used the extra charges to defraud HUD and the project owners.

As noted on a number of occasions, from these simple facts has grown a briar patch of litigation. Recently, the court considered a number of motions related to the fifth amended complaint. In this order, the court considers the motions filed by counterdefendants against the fifth amended counterclaim (“FACC”). FACC (Doc #229, Exh 1).

Counterclaimants plead the following twelve causes of action in the FACC:

Counterdefendants filed three separate motions against the FACC. The first motion is directed to claims one through three and five, the second motion is directed to claims four and six through twelve and the third motion is directed to the FACC as a whole. See Doc.##238, 239 & 244. As noted by Kuimelis,…