Property Rights Law Group, P.C. v. Lynch, 2013 WL 4791485 (D. Hawaii Sept. 6, 2013)

Property Rights Law Group, P.C. v. Lynch, 2013 WL 4791485 (D. Hawaii Sept. 6, 2013) (9th Cir.)

Violations of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(5) do not need to be pled with particularity. Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., 690 F. Supp.2d 760, 765 (N.D.Ill. 2009). “By contrast, section 1030(a)(4) is violated only if a defendant acts ‘with intent to defraud’ and her conduct ‘furthers the intended fraud.’ “ Id. (quoting § 1030(a)(4)). An intent to defraud need not be pled with particularity, but “Rule 9(b)’s requirement that ‘[i]n alleging fraud …, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud,’ … quite plainly applies to section 1030(a)(4)’s requirement that the defendant’s acts further the intended fraud.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s