Download
1 / 14
140 likes | 310 Views
Heightened Pleading Requirements. Ross v. A.H. Robins. What did Ct find insufficiently specific?. 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
E N D
What did Ct find insufficiently specific? 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 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.”
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?
Three Ways of Thinking About a Case Outcome Substantive Legal Rule Meta-Rule
Meta-Rule How did the Leatherman Court decide what rule to apply?
What should Court consider when deciding what a FRCivP means? Text of Rule Prior Cases Best Result “Legislative” History Purpose Canons
