Do the Heightened Pleading Requirements of Rule 9(b) Apply to Negligent Misrepresentation Claims? — Circuit Split
Armour Capital Mgmt. LP v. SS&C Techs., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43280 (D. Conn. Mar. 16, 2018):
This case arises from a contractual relationship between ARMOUR Capital Management LP (ACM), a registered investment advisor focusing on mortgage-related securities, and SS&C Technologies Inc. (SS&C), a provider of financial services software and software-enabled services. ACM alleges in essence that SS&C made misrepresentations and failed to comply with its contractual obligations to implement a new software system for ACM. SS&C now moves to dismiss the amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, I will grant in part [*2] and deny in part SS&C's motion to dismiss.
SS&C argues that ACM's negligent misrepresentation [*18] claim should also be dismissed under Rule 9(b). Courts are deeply split within this District and elsewhere about whether Rule 9(b) applies to negligent misrepresentation claims. See, e.g., Associated Constr./AP Constr., LLC v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2017 WL 1190363, at *10 n.17 (D. Conn. 2017) (Rule 9(b) does not apply to negligent misrepresentation claims under Connecticut law; citing cases); McCullough v. World Wrestling Entm't, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 3d 528, 561 (D. Conn. 2016) (Rule 9(b) applies to negligent misrepresentation claims under Connecticut law; citing cases); see also Michael L. Roberts, et al., 6 Litigating Tort Cases § 68:31 (discussing circuit split); Kimball Dean Parker, Comment, A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), 80 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1461 (2013) (same).
Share this article: