X hits on this document

55 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

11 / 20

counterclaim-defendants must defend multiple theories. Seville, 742 F.2d at 791. Rule 9(b) is

intended to eliminate this type of guesswork. Id. Therefore, because State Farm does not

“adequately describe[] the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentation” for the remaining

reimbursement requests, State Farm does not satisfy the heightened pleading requirement of Rule

9(b) for any request not listed in paragraphs nineteen or twenty-five. Id.; see, e.g., State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. All-Care Chiropractic, No. 04-175, 2004 WL 1047827, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa.

May 6, 2004) (finding, in an insurance fraud case, that plaintiff had alleged the nature of the

fraud, but dismissing pursuant to Rule 9(b) because plaintiff did not identify the “particular

misrepresentations” in the “bills and records” on which plaintiff based its fraud allegations),

vacated in part on other grounds, No. 04-175, 2004 WL 1446033 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 2004).

In summary, I will deny counterclaim-defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the

reimbursement requests listed in paragraphs nineteen or twenty-five or both, but I will grant

counterclaim-defendants’ motion to dismiss the balance of Count I.7

2.

Count II: Statutory Fraud

Counterclaim-defendants argue that Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement applies

to State Farm’s state statutory fraud claim, and that Count II should be dismissed for the same

reasons as Count I. State Farm does not contest the applicability of Rule 9(b). Rather, State

Farm presents the same argument it did for Count I.

7 Counterclaim-defendants embedded a motion for a more definite statement in their motion to dismiss to Count I. (See Countercl.-Defs.’ Mot. Dis. Countercl. at 23 n.6 (Doc. 41).) Given the above-discussed resolution of the motion to dismiss, I will deny the motion for a more definite statement because: (1) as to the reimbursement requests listed in paragraphs nineteen or twenty-five or both, I found that State Farm pleaded with particularity—a more definite statement is not required; and (2) as to the reimbursement requests listed in neither paragraph nineteen nor paragraph twenty-five, the motion for a more definite statement is moot.

11

Document info
Document views55
Page views55
Page last viewedWed Nov 30 03:38:55 UTC 2016
Pages20
Paragraphs418
Words5403

Comments