Whether the relaxed pleading standard for claims where evidence lies within the defendant's exclusive possession applies to claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; In this case THE PETITION for that “a United States court of appeals has entered a . decision in conflict with the decision of” “Complaint in this action under Rule 9(b) would be subject to the relaxed standard that is applied to claims where evidence “lies within [Defendants] exclusive possession” Id.; U.S. ex rel. ; Tamanaha,2011 WL 3423788 at *2; (citing United States ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline Beecham, Inc., 245F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001)); United States ex rel. Franklin, 147 F. Supp. 2d at 49. The panel was applied wrong that “Rule 9(b)[§ 10(b)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 See. Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) Held: A private plaintiff may not maintain an aiding and abetting suit under § 1O(b). Pp.170-192.] “qt does not create a federal cause of action for . fraud and dismissed the case” Id. Petitioner complaint is not § 10(b). Therefore, Petitioner asks this Court to address RETROACTIVELY APPLICABLE TO case ; that are on collateral review.