E-Shops Corp. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10030

E-Shops sues U.S. Bank after nine fraudulent orders in 2009 totaling $11,259.91; chargebacks caused HSBC to return funds.
E-Shops alleges data breach at U.S. Bank and claims the bank knowingly allowed fraud, seeking four counts.
Counts: aiding and abetting fraud, intentional interference with contractual relations, violations of MUDTPA/MCFA, and unjust enrichment.
E-Shops describes security checks (AVS, CVC2) and that delivery is limited to the bank-registered address with signature upon receipt.
Two unnamed U.S. Bank employees allegedly admitted the system was compromised; E-Shops contends Bank knew of the problem but did not disclose.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); E-Shops appeals the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Aiding and abetting fraud requires particularity.	E-Shops alleges Bank knowingly aided fraud based on breach.	Bank contest shows no specifics on who knew what or when.	E-Shops fails Rule 9(b) particularity; claim dismissed.
Tortious interference requires procuring a breach.	E-Shops contends Bank's conduct made performance costlier under contract.	No proof of procurement of breach or increased contract cost tied to Bank.	Claim fails under Minnesota law.
MUDTPA and MCFA require false, deceptive conduct with particularity.	E-Shops asserts data breach and failure to notify cardholders.	Allegations lack specifics of deceptive conduct by Bank.	Claims fail for lack of particularity.
Unjust enrichment requires identifiable value transfer and inequity.	Bank profited from chargebacks or other means at E-Shops' expense.	No factual basis for profit share or inequity shown.	Claim fails as bare assertion.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (rejects conclusory pleading; requires plausible claims)
Cent. Platte Natural Res. Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 643 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) standards)
United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke's Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2006) (fraud pleading requires who, what, when, where, how)
BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2007) (level of particularity in fraud claims depends on case)
Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Possis Med., Inc., 519 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2008) (anonymous employees' info must be tied to defendant)
Sip-Top, Inc. v. Ekco Group, Inc., 86 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 1996) (proof required linking actions to breach)
Furlev Sales & Assocs., Inc. v. N. Am. Auto. Warehouse, Inc., 325 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. 1982) (elements of tortious interference by procurement)
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 356 (Minn. 1998) (procurement element clarified by Minnesota courts)
Trooien v. Mansour, 608 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2010) (Minnesota fraud pleading standards applied)