Opinion ID: 2823253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: Accordingly, the hearing justice’s denial of the motion for a protective order is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc., 199 F.3d 68, 73 (1st Cir. 2000) (“In all averments of fraud   , the circumstances constituting fraud    shall be stated with particularity.”) (quoting Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); see also North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Cardinale, 567 F.3d 8, 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Rule 9(b) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] is intended to set a higher than normal threshold of specificity in factual allegations before the discovery machinery can be set in motion.”). In the present case, Cruz has failed to allege facts that would elicit an inference of fraudulent intent; and, as a result, she has failed to sufficiently allege fraud. See Hayduk v. Lanna, 775 F.2d 441, 444 (1st Cir. 1985) (“[M]ere allegations of fraud    are too conclusional to satisfy the particularity requirement, no matter how many times such accusations are repeated.”). As such, even if Cruz had standing to challenge Mr. Nolan’s authority, she may have been barred from commencing discovery relating to her fraud claims. -9- RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet TITLE OF CASE: Lina Cruz v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. CASE NO: No. 2012-136-M.P. (PC 11-890) COURT: Supreme Court DATE OPINION FILED: January 13, 2015 JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ. WRITTEN BY: Associate Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia SOURCE OF APPEAL: Providence County Superior Court JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT: