16 Cited authorities

Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA
317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 4,370 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims
Swartz v. KPMG LLP
476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 2,956 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”
Schreiber Distributing v. Serv-Well Furniture
806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 2,415 times
Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."
Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc.
885 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 1,897 times
Holding that a complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it "d[id] not specify which plaintiff received which prospectus, or which plaintiff made purchases through the stockbroker defendants"
Cooper v. Pickett
122 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,275 times
Holding that where complaint asserting claims of improper revenue recognition identified some of the defrauded customers, the type of conduct, the general time frame, and why the conduct was fraudulent, it was "not fatal to the complaint that it [did] not describe in detail a single specific transaction . . . by customer, amount, and precise method"
United States ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
125 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 691 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an AKS violation may support a claim under the FCA under a false certification theory
Sanderson v. Hca-The Healthcare Co.
447 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2006) Cited 353 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint may be dismissed under Rule 9(b) if it contains "no specific information about the filing of the claims themselves — nothing, that is, to alert the defendants 'to the precise misconduct with which they are charged and to protect defendants against spurious charges of immoral and fraudulent behavior'" (quoting United States ex. rel. Clausen v. Lab. Corp. of Am., Inc., 290 F.3d 1301, 1310 (11th Cir. 2002))
United States v. Hempfling
431 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 15 times
Finding allegations that fraudulent conduct occurred over a two-year period met the Rule 9(b) particularity standard where the complaint also alleged specific events and dates on which the conduct occurred
County of Santa Clara v. Astra United States, Inc.
428 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 15 times
Applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) to California False Claims Act claim
Comwest, Inc. v. American Operator Services, Inc.
765 F. Supp. 1467 (C.D. Cal. 1991) Cited 20 times
Finding that continuity refers "either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with the threat of repetition"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 362,607 times 962 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,455 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 40,207 times 337 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 6700 - Promoting abusive tax shelters, etc
26 U.S.C. § 6700 Cited 366 times 4 Legal Analyses
Criminalizing the making of a statement regarding investment tax benefits that an individual "knows or has reason to kno[w] is false or fraudulent as to any material matter"

United States of America v. Cathcart et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims

Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”

Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."

Holding that a complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it "d[id] not specify which plaintiff received which prospectus, or which plaintiff made purchases through the stockbroker defendants"

Holding that an AKS violation may support a claim under the FCA under a false certification theory

Finding allegations that fraudulent conduct occurred over a two-year period met the Rule 9(b) particularity standard where the complaint also alleged specific events and dates on which the conduct occurred

Applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) to California False Claims Act claim

Finding that continuity refers "either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with the threat of repetition"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Criminalizing the making of a statement regarding investment tax benefits that an individual "knows or has reason to kno[w] is false or fraudulent as to any material matter"