Seventh Circuit Reaffirms: Claims "Sounding In Fraud" Must Be Plead With Particularity
Of note, the Court recognized that while claims of interference with economic advantage, interference with fiduciary relationship, and civil conspiracy are not by definition fraudulent torts, Rule 9(b) applies to averments of fraud, not claims of fraud, so whether the rule applies will depend on the plaintiff's factual allegations. A complaint alleging fraud must provide "the who, what, when, where, and how . . . A claim that sounds in fraud - in other words, one that is premised upon a course of fraudulent conduct - can implicate Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements." (internal cites and quotes omitted)
Practically speaking, the Court addressed the pleading problem head on stating, "[a] plaintiff claiming fraud or mistake must do more pre-complaint investigation to assure that the claim is responsible and supported, rather than defamatory and extortionate." (internal cites omitted)
With decades of consistent case law supporting this position across the federal circuits, one must wonder how long it will take before most if not all would-be plaintiffs alleging fraud will adhere to the "particularity" mandate of Rule 9(b).
Only time will tell . . .
