Opinion ID: 2792506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims dismissed for failure to state a claim

Text: We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Summers v. Altarum Inst., Corp., 740 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2014). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must present factual allegations that ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). In applying that standard, we take all facts pleaded as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in RFT’s favor. Id. Relevant to this appeal, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 requires that a complaint “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). RFT does not challenge the district court’s determination that aider and abettor liability is not available for private actions under ILSFDA or the federal securities law at issue. Accordingly, we do not review that determination. We conclude that RFT’s complaint alleged only that Appellees were liable for aiding and abetting violations of ILSFDA and the federal securities law and did not provide fair notice of any claim of primary liability against Appellees. We therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing RFT’s ILSFDA and federal securities claims. 6