Hall v. Bell
Hall v. Bell
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION
SYLVESTER C. HALL PLAINTIFF
Vv. No. 3:25-cv-14-DPM
PHIL REYNOLDS and BOOKER PENNINGTON DEFENDANTS
ORDER Pennington’s unopposed motion to dismiss, Doc. 27, is granted. Hall alleges that Pennington embezzled more than $25,000 from him by “committing fraudulent transactions and unauthorized issuance of checks” from Hall’s accounts. Doc. 6 at 2. Because these claims are rooted in fraud, Hall must “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); see also Collins v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
117 F.4th 1010, 1017(8th Cir. 2024). That includes the “who, what, where, when, and how.” United States ex rel. Costner v. United States,
317 F.3d 883, 888(8th Cir. 2003). Hall’s fraud allegations lack many of these particulars. His claims against Pennington are therefore dismissed without prejudice, and Pennington is dismissed as a defendant.
So Ordered. tell ()- D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge (la fre 2025
_2-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown