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).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.