Roche v. Robbins
5:25-cv-00291
W.D. Okla.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Randall C. Roche, Kent Taylor, and Julie Taylor) filed a single fraud claim against Defendant Scott Robbins in Oklahoma state court, alleging they were defrauded out of more than $94,000.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs alleged Robbins took funds for work not completed, taken from investor money.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Plaintiffs did not plead fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
- Plaintiffs responded that they only needed a "short and plain statement" of the claim, and that dismissal was premature because discovery had not yet occurred.
- The court was tasked with determining if Plaintiffs' fraud allegations met federal heightened pleading standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading Standard for Fraud | Only need a short and plain statement; discovery premature | Must plead fraud with particularity per Rule 9(b) | 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard applies |
| Particularity of Fraud Allegation | The complaint is sufficient at this stage | Lacks time, place, and contents of false statements | Plaintiffs did not meet particularity |
| Sufficiency of Complaint Pre-Discovery | Discovery will develop facts and motion is premature | Dismissal proper if complaint fails to plead enough | Complaint can’t proceed solely for discovery |
| Opportunity to Amend | N/A (not addressed specifically in arguments) | N/A | Dismissal delayed to allow amendment motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (explains what constitutes "facial plausibility" in a complaint)
- Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 124 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 1997) (interprets Rule 9(b) particularity requirement for fraud)
- Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723 (10th Cir. 2010) (confirms standard for interpreting pleadings on a motion to dismiss)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (courts can disregard conclusory statements in pleadings)