X hits on this document





6 / 20

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.

  • III.


    • A.

      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


Document info
Document views101
Page views109
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 14:01:48 UTC 2017