Case Notes: Fraud

• » Media General, Inc. v. Tomlin | 
  532 F.3d 854 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a grant of summary judgment to defendants on fraud claims, finding that the defendants made material misrepresentations in connection with the plaintiff’s purchase of their company and that the plaintiff’s failure to ask for written verification of the facts didn’t excuse the defendants’ conduct; however, it rejected as speculative a damages theory that the plaintiff would have insisted on a $10 million reduction in the purchase price had it been fully informed.
• » Griffith v. Barnes | 
  560 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2008)
  The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a default judgment against the defendants, who engaged in unfair trade practices in fraudulently taking title to the plaintiff’s property, and imposed punitive damages.
• » Aktieselskabet AF21 v. Fame Jeans, Inc. | 
  525 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation where the plaintiff did not allege detrimental reliance on the misrepresentation.
• » United States ex rel. Folliard v. CDW Tech. Servs., Inc. | 
  2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38233 (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2010)
  In a case involving alleged false certifications that products sold to the federal government were from countries designated under the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied in part a motion to dismiss, finding it sufficient that the complaint had alleged that the government had “probably” purchased the products.
• » d’Elia v. Rice Development, Inc. | 
  ___ P.3d ___, Case No. 20050247-CA, October 13, 2006 (Utah Ct. App.)
  Utah Court of Appeals finds sole member-manager of LLC personally liable for LLC’s tortious acts regardless of lack of evidence of self-dealing.
• » Power & Telephone Supply Company, Inc. v. Suntrust Banks, Inc. | 
  No. 05-5966 (6th Cir. May 17, 2006)
  A lender’s representations about what it intended to do for a borrower if the borrow did business with the lender did not amount to an intentional misrepresentation sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) for pleading fraud.
• » Leon v. IDX Systems Corp. | 
  2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23820 (9th Cir. 2006)
  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a case for spoliation of evidence. Dr. Leon was the director of medical informatics at IDX.
• » Crowe v. Tull | 
  No. 04SA3845, 2006 Colo. LEXIS 4 (Colo. Jan. 9, 2006)
  Deceptive Trade Practices statute applies to professional activities of lawyers who advertise.
  

  [See also: Court Decision (PDF)]

• » Caudill v. Lancaster Bingo Co. | 
  2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24621 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2005)
• » Taylor Steel, Inc. v. Keeton | 
  417 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2005)
• » Tissue Transplant Technology, Ltd v. Osteotech, Inc. | 
  No. Civ. A. SA-04-CA-0819, 2005 WL 958407 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2005)
  Contractual choice of law provision not applicable to related torts when provision limited to construction of contract.
• » White v. District of Columbia | 
  852 A.2d 922 (D.C. 2004)
  The District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment rejecting a fraudulent misrepresentation claim and remanded for dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the employee’s sole remedy was an administrative claim rather than a free-standing fraud claim.
• » Helmer v. Doletskaya | 
  393 F.3d 201 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a fraud claim for lack of personal jurisdiction where there were insufficient contacts between the claimed economic injury resulting from the fraud and the District of Columbia.
• » United States ex rel. El-Amin v. The George Washington University | 
  2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3563 (D.D.C. 2005)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed in part a qui tam fraud suit, finding that most of the allegations had not been pled with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
• » United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp. | 
  2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18231 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a qui tam fraud complaint under the False Claims Act, holding that delivering invoices to a federal grantee did not constitute presentment of a false claim under the Act.
• » Lance v. United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust | 
  2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 776 (D.D.C. 2005)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed an employee’s fraud claim for failure to allege the claim with particularity, finding that the plaintiff had not identified the agents of the defendant that made misrepresentations, did not point to any specific misrepresentations, and did not identify the time and place of the supposed admission that the earlier representations were false.
• » Qualls v. Rumsfeld | 
  2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1615 (D.D.C. 2005)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied a preliminary injunction in an action for fraudulent inducement of a contract to enlist in the Army Reserve, finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to prevail on the merits of that claim because the contract disclosed that the Army might involuntarily extend the term of service.
• » Macintosh v. Bldg. Owners and Managers Ass’n Int’l. | 
  2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 318 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2005)
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied in relevant part a motion to dismiss an allegation that an employee was wrongfully discharged for failure to fraudulently inflate his employer’s contract claim. The court found that the employee had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted notwithstanding his failure to invoke a specific statute that the employer sought to have him violate.
• » Brown v. Countrywide Home Loans | 
  319 B.R. 278 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2004)
  A Bankruptcy Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to a housing organization on a homeowner’s claim against the organization for fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that the homeowner had not shown intent to deceive, despite certain false statements.
• » Tio v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr. | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23503 (D.D.C. 2004)
  A doctor brought various claims in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the hospital where he was employed. The Court dismissed all of the claims for failure to pursue arbitration as required by an agreement between the parties, and rejected the doctor’s argument that he was fraudulently induced into signing the agreement.
• » Calvetti v. Antcliff | 
  346 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D.D.C. 2004)
  In a suit by homeowners against certain contractors for fraud and unfair trade practices, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to one contractor, finding no evidence of intent to deceive, but denied another’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
• » DBI Architects, P.C. v. American Express Travel-Related Services Co. | 
  388 F.3d 886 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of a cardholder’s suit under the Truth in Lending Act against American Express for a refund of unauthorized charges by the cardholder’s employee. The Court found that the employee had “apparent authority” to make the charges, but remanded for a determination of when apparent authority arose.
• » >Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst | 
  2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1556 (D.D.C. 2005)
  United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the plaintiffs in a fraud action to produce certain documents for which the attorney-client privilege had been asserted, holding that the plaintiffs had placed that information at issue through their claim that they had justifiably relied on certain representations by the defendants.
• » United States ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. | 
  389 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the relator’s False Claims Act suit, holding that the relator had not met the pleading requirements for fraud because the complaint did not explain the various defendants’ relation to the scheme and set forth no facts explaining the scheme.
• » Anderson v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co. | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8393 (D.D.C. 2004)
  Fraud claim by the purchaser of a condominium unit against a contractor retained to eliminate toxic mold from the unit was dismissed because the complaint did not plead with sufficient particularity the alleged misrepresentations.
• » Building Services Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2339 (D.D.C. 2004)
  Fraud claim by a cleaning services contractor against Amtrak dismissed where the plaintiff could not document the allegedly false statements about the quality of the plaintiff’s performance, or the plaintiff’s own detrimental reliance on the allegedly false statements, and where no evidence supported the plaintiff’s claim that Amtrak misrepresented the reasons for its termination of the plaintiff.
• » Greenberg v. Crossroads Systems, Inc. | 
  364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004)
  To establish a fraud-on-the-market theory of reliance through a decline in stock price following an earlier, positive statement, plaintiff must establish that the false statement causing an increase was related to the statement causing the decrease.
• » In re Lutheran Brotherhood Variable Insurance Products Co., Sales Practice Litigation | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7789 (D. Minn. 2004)
  Class certification was proper for consumers asserting claims under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act against insurer arising from the sale of “vanishing premium” product.
• » Southland Securities Corp. vs. INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc. | 
  2004 WL 626721 (5th Cir. 2004)
  “Group pleading” does not satisfy particularity requirement when pleading securities fraud.
• » Dodson International Parts, Inc. v. Hiatt | 
  2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17979 (D. Kan. September 25, 2003)
  A plaintiff cannot maintain a tortious interference with a prospective business advantage claim unless there is a clear showing of a business relationship and cannot maintain a fraud by silence claim without evidence of a contractual duty or fiduciary duty by the defendant.
• » Coroles v. Sabey
  2003 UT App 339, 79 P.3d 974 (October 17, 2003)
  In a complaint, fraud claims must be plead with particularity under the appropriate claim for relief, not just in the general allegations section.
• » Rademeyer v. Farris
  284 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2002)
  Generally, for purposes of applying the statute of limitations, a fraud claim accrues when the fraud is discovered or reasonably could have been discovered. In the case of a fiduciary relationship, a cause of action for fraud accrues when it is discovered, as there is no duty of inquiry.
• » Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc.
  2003 WL 22026346 (5th Cir. (Miss.)
  Fraudulent joinder of non-diverse defendants.
• » Russell/Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson
  2003 UT App 316, 482 Utah Adv. Rep. 27
  The discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations for fraud and other claims when the defendants fraudulently concealed information which would have apprised plaintiff of cause of action.
• » Armed Forces Ins. Exchange v. Harrison
  (Utah, 2003)
  Findings supporting a fraud claim against a corporation are not necessarily adequate to support a fraud claim against the corporation's president, director, and sole shareholder.