Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 9(B) Particularity Requirement For Fraud

54 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Durham v. Bus. Mgmt. Assocs.
  847 F.2d 1505· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the district court properly denied summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the appellees' due diligence in discovering the alleged fraud and the applicability of Rule 10b-5 to one appellant, and that the RICO claim was adequa
• Rocco DiLEO and Louise DiLeo v. Ernst & Young
  901 F.2d 624· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-07 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the complaint failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and lacked sufficient allegations of scienter and duty for aiding and abetting claims.
• In re Craftmatic Securities Litigation v. Kraftsow
  890 F.2d 628· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 37×
  The court held that liability under § 12(2) extends to those who solicit purchases, not just immediate sellers, and that allegations of deceptive practices in marketing, if proven, are actionable under federal securities laws, distinguishing them from mere corporate mismanagement
• Felton v. Walston & Co., Inc.
  508 F.2d 577· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-23 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently particularized the circumstances of alleged fraud against Main, Lafrentz and 3 I Co., and Marine Midland and Brownstein, but not against Elias, Riesenbach, Sher, and Stitching Excerpta Medica.
• Craighead v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc.
  899 F.2d 485· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-28 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' federal securities and RICO claims, finding that the allegations lacked the requisite particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and that certain statutes and rules did not provide for private causes of action.
• NEW England Data Servs., Inc. v. Becher
  829 F.2d 286· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 27×
  The court held that while Rule 9(b) requires specificity in pleading RICO mail and wire fraud, dismissal should not be automatic if the rule is not satisfied; instead, courts should consider allowing discovery if the facts are likely within the defendant's control and the allegat
• Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc.
  818 F.2d 1433· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that an 'in-and-out' trader can suffer recoverable damages under the out-of-pocket rule even without a corrective disclosure, and that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded fraud with particularity against individual defendants under Rule 9(b) and stated a claim for c
• Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc.
  885 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Pinter standard for 'seller' liability applies to Section 12(2) claims, and that the investors failed to plead Section 10(b)/10b-5 claims with sufficient particularity. Leave to amend the Section 12(2) claim against stockbrokers was remanded.
• Cosmas v. Hassett
  886 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the amended complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s pleading requirements for particularity and scienter in fraud allegations.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  185 F. Supp. 2d 1310· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while some RICO claims were properly pled, others were barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act due to the absence of private remedies in certain states; ERISA claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or for having adequate alternative r
• Colonial Penn Ins. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc.
  814 F. Supp. 1084· S.D. Fla.· 1992-12-08 ·cited 17×
  The court denied in part and granted in part motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, finding federal and Florida RICO claims, breach of contract, and civil theft claims sufficiently pleaded, but granted dismissal for certain fraud claims and conspiracy allegations.
• Berry v. Native Am. Servs. Corp.
  109 F.4th 1297· 11th Cir.· 2024-07-25 ·cited 14×
  DWG & Associates, Inc., an architecture firm owned by Dennie Gose and Brent Berry, was admitted to the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program but graduated in 2010 when it exceeded size limits, though it remained eligible to bid on previously awarded 8(a) contracts. When DW
• Daniel J. Devaney under Chapter 11 of the Bankr. Code for CB & R (Holdings) Ltd. v. A.P. Chester
  813 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the fraud claims against Salomon Brothers were properly dismissed for failing to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b), but the denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.
• Miscellaneous Serv. Workers v. Philco-Ford Corp.
  661 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Service Contract Act does not create a private right of action for employees against their employers, and that the state wage and hour claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.
• Gottreich v. SAN Francisco Inv. Corp.
  552 F.2d 866· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently stated a claim for relief under Rule 10b-5 and state law, despite the complaint's imperfections.
• Farlow v. Peat
  956 F.2d 982· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint failed to state claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and RICO with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), and that the denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
• Viscomi v. Paine
  596 F. Supp. 1537· S.D. Fla.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for churning under federal securities law due to a lack of specificity required by Rule 9(b) and an absence of scienter. State law claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Bankers Tr. Co. v. OLD Republic Ins. Co.
  959 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a suit for a declaration of an insurer's indemnity obligation is not premature under Article III, even if the insured's liability has not yet been determined, and that the fraud count failed to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b).
• Guidry v. Bank OF LaPLACE
  954 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a bank account is not a RICO enterprise and that the plaintiff's investment scheme did not involve securities. It affirmed dismissal of most state law claims but reversed dismissal of some negligence claims, remanding them without prejudice.
• UNI*Quality v. Infotronx
  974 F.2d 918· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege a pattern of racketeering activity required for a RICO claim, and that the allegations of fraud against other companies did not meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b).
• O'Brien v. Nat'l Prop. Analysts P'rs
  936 F.2d 674· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the investors' allegations of fraud against the auditor failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
• Jackson v. Alexander
  465 F.2d 1389· 10th Cir.· 1972-09-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's fraud claim failed because the allegations did not meet the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) and were contradicted by the express terms of the option agreement.
• Jacobs v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
  113 F.4th 1294· 11th Cir.· 2024-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the False Claims Act's public disclosure bar applied because the allegations in the relator's complaint were substantially the same as those previously disclosed in online blog articles, and the relator was not an original source of the information.
• Cordova v. Lehman Bros., Inc.
  526 F. Supp. 2d 1305· S.D. Fla.· 2007-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to meet the particularity requirements for fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and that the Liberty Trust constituted a one-time investment decision, rendering post-investment statements non-actionable.
• Breard v. Gardella
  941 F.2d 142· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the investors' complaint sufficiently pleaded fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) by alleging facts that gave rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent.
• Daniels v. Fiddlesticks Country Club, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-14
  The court granted in part Plaintiff Ryan Daniels' motion to dismiss, dismissing Fiddlesticks' counterclaims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment without prejudice, while allowing the fraudulent misrepresentation claim to proceed.
• Alin Pop v. LuliFama.com LLC
  11th Cir.· 2025-08-01
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s particularity requirement applies to Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claims when those claims sound in fraud, and affirmed the district court's dismissal for failure to meet this stand
• Sedona P'rs LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc.
  11th Cir.· 2025-07-25
  The court held that allegations derived from discovery materials can satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
• Ramindesign, LLC v. Skarzynski
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-16
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing Count III without prejudice for failure to state a claim and granting leave to amend, while denying dismissal for Counts V and VI based on independent tort doctrine, ownership, and notice.
• Northstar Reg'l P.S.C. v. InSync Healthcare Solutions LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30
  The court held that fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed for failing to meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement, and the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed because an express contract existed.
• Ramindesign, LLC v. Skarzynski
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-27
  The court held that the counter-plaintiff adequately alleged ownership of materials and that the independent tort doctrine did not bar claims against RDD because there was no privity of contract.
• Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-03
  The court held that the relator's motion to compel discovery regarding affiliate providers is granted because the alleged fraudulent scheme encompasses both employed and affiliated physicians, and the distinctions presented by the defendants are not significant enough to exclude
• Quesada v. Better Earth, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-21
  A homeowner sued a solar installation company and its parent corporation for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging they failed to complete solar system installation within the promised timeframe and failed to include a net-metering feature, causing her higher electri
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Eakes
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-20
  The court held that the amended complaint was not a shotgun pleading and satisfied Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement for fraud. The court also severed Count V as to Daughtry and transferred that claim to the Middle District of Alabama.
• Smith v. Boston Red Sox
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-29
  The court held that Count III of the amended complaint fails to state a claim for fraud, invasion of privacy, and certain statutory violations due to insufficient pleading and lack of private right of action.
• Metrocity Holdings, LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-18
  The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the complaint adequately pled claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation.
• Smith v. Boston Red Sox
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-23
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for fraud, invasion of privacy, and violation of the Florida Whistleblower Act with sufficient particularity or factual support.
• Appleby v. Knauf Gips KG
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-08
  The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, dismissing some claims with prejudice and others without prejudice, and requiring an amended complaint.
• Rosen v. Exact Scis. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-07
  The court held that the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery regarding the SuperCertificate program must be denied because the program was not pleaded with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) for False Claims Act qui tam actions.
• SFR Servs., LLC v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-12
  The court held that the plaintiff's RICO claim is barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and fails to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), leading to its dismissal.
• Milazzo, Jr. v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-06-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim and was properly dismissed with prejudice because it did not correct deficiencies in the original complaint, particularly regarding the particularity required for fraud claims under Rule 9(b) and the fa
• Milazzo, Jr. v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-12-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state claims with sufficient particularity and factual support, and dismissed the action.
• Royal Palm Vill. Residents, Inc. v. Slider
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-15
  The court held that sanctions under Rule 11 were not warranted because the plaintiffs' claims, while dismissed for pleading deficiencies, were not so frivolous or in bad faith as to justify sanctions, especially given the court's prior grants of leave to amend.
• DJ Lincoln Enters., Inc. v. Google, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-07-21
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege the existence of a RICO enterprise and failed to plead fraud claims with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), warranting dismissal with prejudice.
• TD Holdings, Inc. v. IFG Opportunity Fund, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-12
  The court held that affirmative defenses are subject to Rule 8 pleading standards and, when alleging fraud, Rule 9(b), but motions to strike are disfavored and will only be granted if a defense is insufficient as a matter of law.
• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. The Right Spinal Clinic, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-14
  The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint sufficiently pleaded claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 9(b), and therefore denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.
• Payne v. Sanon
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-29
  The court held that the First Amended Complaint was a deficient shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim under the False Claims Act due to a lack of particularity required by Rule 9(b).
• Lezer Corp. v. Noble P'rs LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-12-28
  The court held that a party cannot incorporate documents by reference without elaboration, and claims for conversion, fraud, civil conspiracy, and civil theft were not sufficiently pleaded to warrant default judgment beyond the breach of contract claim.
• Girling v. Specialist Doctors' Grp., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-29
  The court held that the relator failed to plead with sufficient particularity that false claims were actually submitted to the government, a requirement for False Claims Act liability under 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(1)(A) and (B).
• Olhausen v. Arriva Med., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-08-26
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the first-to-file rule because they were based on the same underlying facts as a previously filed action, even if the legal theories or specific details differed.