Opinion ID: 780678
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Text: 36 CHADD moved to dismiss Vess's first amended complaint for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Vess's entire complaint against CHADD is comprised of allegations of a fraudulent conspiracy with Novartis. Although Vess nowhere uses the word fraud in these allegations, the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) cannot be evaded simply by avoiding the use of that magic word. Where, as here, the averments in the complaint necessarily describe fraudulent conduct, Rule 9(b) applies to those averments. Further, where, as here, the entire complaint against a particular defendant alleges a unified course of fraudulent conduct, it is grounded in fraud, and Rule 9(b) applies to the whole of that complaint. 37 Vess's allegations against CHADD fall far short of satisfying Rule 9(b). Vess does allege that CHADD received $748,000 from Novartis between 1991 and 1994, but that is where the detail both begins and ends. Vess does not explain how CHADD deliberately attempted to increase the sales of Ritalin, and he identifies no specific misinformation distributed by CHADD. Vess's conclusory allegations simply are not specific enough to give [CHADD] notice of the particular misconduct... so that [it] can defend against the charge and not just deny that [it has] done anything wrong. Neubronner, 6 F.3d at 671. 38 Because Vess declined to amend his complaint further when given the opportunity, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the claims against CHADD with prejudice under both Rule 9(b) and Rule 12(b)(6).