ANR Construction, Inc. v. CPF Construction, LLC, 2:21-cv-00575

Plaintiff ANR Construction, Inc. contracted with Defendant CPF Construction, LLC under a Binder Agreement (approx. $9.22M) for construction of stick-built housing tied to a state/federal disaster program.
ANR alleges CPF was unlicensed in WV when soliciting ANR and later failed to pay ANR roughly $330,980, then terminated ANR from the project.
CPF counterclaimed, alleging ANR failed to complete homes, did not pay downstream subcontractors/materialmen, diverted intermittent payments for the owner’s personal use, and thereby committed fraud.
CPF alleged the fraud occurred in late spring/summer 2019, described the contract’s one-third intermittent payment schedule, and claimed damages including double payments and costs to remove improper mechanics’ liens.
ANR moved to dismiss CPF’s fraud counterclaim for failure to plead with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and alternatively sought judgment as a matter of law or partial summary judgment.
The district court denied ANR’s motion, holding CPF’s counterclaim pleaded fraud with sufficient specificity to give ANR notice and survive dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of fraud pleading under Rule 9(b)	ANR: CPF failed to plead fraud with particularity (lacked who/what/when/where).	CPF: Allegations identify timing, payment scheme, misrepresentations, diversion of funds, reliance, and damages.	Court: Denied dismissal; allegations meet Rule 9(b) and Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards.
Alternative request for judgment or summary judgment	ANR: Alternatively sought JMOL or partial summary judgment on the counterclaim.	CPF: Opposed; focused on pleading sufficiency and factual disputes preclude summary disposition.	Court: Declined to consider summary judgment request (no supporting record citations) and denied dismissal under Rule 9(b).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleadings must state a plausible claim to relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations not entitled to assumption of truth; plausibility standard)
United States ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2008) (Rule 9(b) requires description of time, place, contents, and identity of misrepresentation)
Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 1999) (courts should hesitate to dismiss fraud claims under Rule 9(b) if notice is adequate)
United States ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. N. Am., Inc., 707 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013) (heightened pleading standard applies to fraud-based claims)
McCleary-Evans v. Md. Dep't of Transp., State Highway Admin., 780 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2015) (Rule 8(a) objective: give defendant fair notice of claim and grounds)
Kidd v. Mull, 595 S.E.2d 308 (W. Va. 2004) (setting out elements of fraud under West Virginia law)