Opinion ID: 2590373
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alkan Pled Fraud with Sufficient Particularity.

Text: Martha argues Alkan did not plead its cause of action for fraud with sufficient specificity. Alaska Civil Rule 9(b) requires that in all averments of fraud ..., the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. This standard is not high. Civil Rule 9(b) simply requires a claim of fraud to specify the time and place where the fraud occurred; it seeks to prevent conclusory pleading by requiring a complaint to do more than `recit[e] without specificity that fraud existed,' but it does not prevent plaintiffs from filing complaints based on available information and belief. [10] Alkan's complaint met Civil Rule 9(b)'s requirement. It alleged how and when Mitch embezzled from Alkan: In his capacity as a financial officer and controller, defendant Mitchell Asher embezzled funds from the plaintiff. The complaint then described the property Martha bought, and alleged that the property belongs to defendant Mitchell Asher, but has fraudulently been placed in the name of Martha Liliana Asher for the purpose of avoiding creditors and making the defendant Mitchell Asher judgment proof.... Funds embezzled from Alkan Shelter, LLC were used to purchase, or have been invested in, the above-referenced real estate. Alkan's complaint then alleged that Martha represented under oath that Mitchell Asher had no interest, legal or equitable, in the above referenced real estate ... when in fact Mitchell Asher did have an interest in the above described real estate.... Through the use of the above fraudulent testimony and documents, Martha Liliana Asher convinced Alkan Shelter LLC to release its lis pendens on the property. These allegations set forth facts supporting all five elements of fraud. [11] They are sufficient to meet the standard in Civil Rule 9(b).