Henry's Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HENRY'S BULLFROG BEES; KELVIN No. 24-6400 ADEE, Doing business as Adee Honey D.C. No. Farms; GOLDEN PRAIRIE HONEY 2:21-cv-00582-DJC-CKD FARMS CORP, previously SAVE Golden Prairie Honey Farms, LLC Doing business as Valor Honey, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SUNLAND TRADING, INC.; LAMEX FOODS, INC.; BARKMAN HONEY, LLC; DUTCH GOLD HONEY, INC.; TRUE SOURCE HONEY, LLC; NSF INTERNATIONAL; ODEM INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants - Appellees, and INTERTEK TESTING SERVICES, NA, INC., AMERICAN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY LABORATORIES CORP., INTERTEK FOOD SERVICES GMBH, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Court, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Henry’s Bullfrog Bees, Golden Prairie Honey Farms Corp d/b/a Valor Honey, and Kelvin Adee as co-owner of Adee Honey Farms (collectively “Plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s order, which granted Defendants’1 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with prejudice.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). We have jurisdiction over the district court’s final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 9(b). See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave to amend, but whether amendment would be futile is reviewed de novo.

Malheur Forest Fairness Coal. v. Iron Triangle, LLC, 164 F.4th 710, 723 (9th Cir. 2026). We affirm.

Under Rule 9(b), when a claim is “grounded in fraud,” that claim must satisfy a heightened pleading standard; the plaintiff must “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1122, 1124 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)). This means that a plaintiff must “detail with particularity the time, place, and manner of each act of fraud, plus the role of each defendant in each scheme.” Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 405 (9th Cir. 1991). Put another way, “[a]verments of fraud must be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of the misconduct charged.” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir. 1997)).

Considered separately and as a whole, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint fail to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.

Plaintiffs’ allegations are largely conclusory claims without any supporting detail and those claims that relate to concrete events are both insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ claims alone and lack the necessary “who, what, when, where, and how” details of the alleged fraud. Vess, 317 F.3d at 1106.

AFFIRMED.