Page:Bowyer v. Ducey (CV-20-02321-PXH-DJH) (2020) Order.pdf/23

 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (“In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.”). “This particularity requirement demands a higher degree of notice than that required for other claims. The claim must identify who, what, where, when, and how.” ''U.S. ex rel. Costner v. United States'', 317 F.3d 883, 888 (8th Cir. 2003).

Moreover, “claims of fraud or mistake… must, in addition to pleading with particularity, also plead plausible allegations. That is, the pleading must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the misconduct alleged.” ''Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.'', 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted). Indeed, “Rule 9(b) serves not only to give notice to defendants of the specific fraudulent conduct against which they must defend, but also ‘to deter the filing of complaints as a pretext for the discovery of unknown wrongs, to protect [defendants] from the harm that comes from being subject to fraud charges, and to prohibit plaintiffs from unilaterally imposing upon the court, the parties and society enormous social and economic costs absent some factual basis.’” Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing In re Stac Elec. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Establishing the plausibility of a complaint’s allegations is a two-step process that is “context-specific” and “requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 679. First, a court must “identif[y] pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. Then, assuming the truth only of well-pleaded factual allegations, a court must “determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id.; see also ''Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co.'', 751 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014) (identifying the two-step process for evaluating pleadings). Although a plaintiff’s specific factual allegations may be consistent with a plaintiff’s claim, a district court must assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct such that a plaintiff’s claims cannot cross the line “‘from conceivable to plausible.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680