42. Is the court likely to grant the pharmacy's motion to dismiss?

The guiding principle of pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is known as «notice pleading.» Notice pleading refers to a system of pleading requirements that only emphasizes pleadings as a way to notify parties of general issues in a case. This allows parties drafting pleadings to state their claims in general terms without alleging detailed facts to support each claim. Under the FRCP, a complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the court's jurisdiction, sufficient factual allegations to allow a district court to find that the claim is plausible, and identification of the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Certain «special matters» must be pleaded with particularity. For these «special matters,» notice is necessary for the opponent to be able to prepare for trial. They are typically claims that the adversary will not be expecting unless his attention is specifically called to them. These special matters, listed in FRCP 9, include the circumstances giving rise to any allegation of fraud or mistake. A plaintiff's failure to specially plead one of the items listed in Rule 9 may prevent him from recovering at all, or from recovering particular items of damage.

B is correct. The court should grant the pharmacy's motion to dismiss because the insurance company's complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements for a fraud action. Generally, a complaint is only required to include a jurisdictional statement, the relief sought, and sufficient factual allegations for a court to find the claim is merely plausible. However, certain matters are considered special and require more particular pleadings. Fraud is considered a special matter that requires a heightened level of notice, including a statement of the circumstances giving rise to the allegation of fraud.

Here, the insurance company's complaint did not allege the pharmacy's state of mind in submitting allegedly false claims or the particulars of the false claim submissions, which is not enough to constitute the circumstances giving rise to the fraud claim. As such, the complaint should be dismissed.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the court should grant the motion to dismiss, it is not because complaints of fraud require specific allegations detailing malice. What is required is particular circumstances giving rise to the fraud claim, and the mental state allegation may be pleaded generally. Nevertheless, the complaint should be dismissed for the reasons explained above.

C is incorrect. As explained above, notice pleading typically requires a short and plain statement of the court's jurisdiction, sufficient factual allegations to make the claim plausible, and the relief sought. However, fraud is a special matter that demands a higher level of particularity in pleading the claim, which the complaint failed to do here.

D is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the requirements for a special pleading. Typically, a plaintiff must include sufficient facts for the claim to be plausible, as well as a jurisdictional statement and the relief sought. Beyond those basic pleading requirements, fraud is considered a special matter that necessitates more particularity in the complaint. In this case, the complaint failed to identify the circumstances giving rise to the fraud claim, and as such, should be dismissed.