-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
557 F.2d 386·
3d Cir.·
1977-06-22
·cited 6×
A petition to open or vacate a judgment entered in federal court is procedurally governed by Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., not liberal notice pleading standards, and requires allegations of fraud to be stated with particularity.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
165 F. Supp. 3d 1357·
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-10
·cited 1×
The court granted the motion to dismiss counterclaims 1 and 4 for failure to plead fraud with particularity and granted in part the motion to strike, striking affirmative defense 8 for lack of standing.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2026-01-30
Stoltz Management sued Entrata, Inc. for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of unfair trade practices acts after Entrata failed to deliver functional smart home hubs for apartment complexes and refused refunds. The Delaware Superior Court granted the mot
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-19
The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead fraud claims with particularity and that the conversion claim was not independent of the breach of contract claim.
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-12
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for tortious interference, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, and dismissed all counts with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-15
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing the negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims for failure to plead with particularity and outrageous conduct, respectively, while allowing the bre
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-13
The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss the False Claims Act and Florida False Claims Act claims should be denied because the relator sufficiently pleaded the allegations with particularity required by Rule 9(b).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-01-08
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent inducement were sufficiently particular to survive a motion to dismiss, as the reference prices could be considered statements of fact due to the defendant's superior knowledge of market conditions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-12
The court held that the Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed because it fails to plead fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), specifically by failing to identify the specific defendants responsible for alleged false claims and retalia
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2014-02-25
The court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding Pope's personal liability for fraud. While Pope argued he acted solely as an agent and lacked knowledge of the falsity of his statements, the court determined that unde