The courts are tightening up against the practice of filing complaints that are broad and conclusory, shy of essential facts, and that read like a list of generalized elements of a cause of action borrowed from a treatise. The U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Twombly and Iqbal1 demand that pleaders give their adversaries fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Advancing loads of labels, legal conclusions and formulaic recitations once passed muster but no more. A fuller factual presentation is required. Claims must be shown to be "plausible."
When it comes to pleadings alleging that a defendant committed fraud, for charges that can stigmatize an adversary or damage one’s reputation and that can easily be fabricated, Federal Civil Procedure Rule 9(b) requires that the pleader "must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud…." This rule allows an informed and early response and deters filing of shaky lawsuits hopeful of finding something blameworthy during discovery. The courts expect pleaders of fraud to perform a greater pre-complaint investigation.2
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
