Opinion ID: 492033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Particularity with Which Dory's and Western's

Text: Involvement is Pled 70 Finally, defendants Dory and Western argue that they should be dismissed from the case because their involvement has not been pled with the degree of particularity required by Rule 9(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. We reject this argument. First, Rule 9(b) provides that malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally. Some precedent has construed this language to mean that a party's vicarious liability need not be pled with particularity. See In re National Student Marketing Litigation, 413 F.Supp. 1156, 1158 (D.D.C.1976); Keys v. Wolfe, 540 F.Supp. 1054, 1066 (N.D.Tex.1982). Even if particularity is required here, however, the complaint in this case is sufficiently detailed about Western's involvement in the scheme. 71 Dory's involvement has also been pled with the requisite degree of particularity. Plaintiffs have alleged the acts involved and the people who they believe committed them. At least at this stage of the case plaintiffs need not attribute each individual act to the individual defendant who committed it.