Heightened Pleading

Requirements

Ross v.

A.H. Robins

Basic Nature of the Suit

• Robins issued glowing reports about Dalkon Shield• Robins knew (or learned) that

reports were false• Robins did not correct them• P bought & held stock due to

misrepresentations• P injured because stock was

overvalued (at time of purchase) due to misrepresentations

What did Ct find insufficiently specific?

What standard does the Ross court set

for pleading knowledge of falsity in securities cases?

Don’t facts pled already create strong inference of

knowledge?

Where did Gabrielson get her information?

What else should P have alleged to show strong

inference?

Is decision consistent with Rule 9(b)?

Do heightened pleading requirements make sense

in this type of suit?

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

“In [certain private securities class action cases] the complaint shall . . . state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.”

Leatherman

Municipal § 1983 Liability

• Under the “Monell doctrine,” cities are not liable under respondeat superior• They’re only liable if the employee

was executing or implementing city policy

What’s the pleading issue in Leatherman?

Outcome

Three Ways of Thinking About a Case

Substantive Legal Rule

Meta-Rule

How did the Leatherman Court decide what rule

to apply?

Meta-Rule

Text of Rule

What should Court consider when deciding what a FRCivP means?

Prior Cases

Best Result

“Legislative” History

Purpose

Canons

Crawford El