allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 1965 (citations and
footnote omitted); see also Phillips, 515 F.3d at 232.
Rule 9(b) Pleading Standard
Counterclaim-defendants’ central assertion in their motion is that State Farm’s
counterclaim does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure create a system of pleading whereby the particularity with which litigants must state
their claims varies with the substance of their assertions. “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party
must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
9(b). By pleading with particularity, a plaintiff places defendants “on notice of the precise
misconduct with which they are charged, and . . . safeguard[s] defendants against spurious
charges of immoral and fraudulent behavior.” Seville Indus. Mach. v. Southmost Mach. Corp.,
742 F.2d 786, 791 (3d Cir. 1984).
“Plaintiffs may satisfy this requirement by pleading the ‘date, place or time’ of the fraud,
or through ‘alternative means of injecting precision and some measure of substantiation into their
allegations of fraud.’” Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217, 224 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Seville,
742 F.2d at 791). A plaintiff must also “allege who made a misrepresentation to whom and the
general content of the misrepresentation.” Id. Nevertheless, the Third Circuit has cautioned
against “focusing exclusively on [Rule 9(b)’s] ‘particularity’ language” because such a focus is
“‘too narrow an approach [that] fails to take account of the general simplicity and flexibility
contemplated by the rules.’” Seville, 742 F.2d at 791 (quoting Christidis v. First Pa. Mortgage
Trust, 717 F.2d 96, 100 (3d Cir. 1983) (quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and