Sometime early in law school we probably learn that the Federal Rules only require notice pleading. All you need is a short, plain statement of the facts that entitle your client to relief. But we might also learn that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 imposes a higher pleading standard for some kinds of claims, like fraud. Rule 9(b) requires that “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake . . . .” The Sixth Circuit recently explained just how much particularity a complaint, even a rather detailed complaint, needs in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

J. Lynn Roycroft, a former supervisor at a drug and alcohol treatment center, sued the center’s operator, Geo Group, under the False Claims Act’s qui tam section. Roycroft alleged that Geo Group had sent months of fraudulent billing claims to Ohio’s Medicaid agency. The Northern District of Ohio dismissed Roycroft’s claims because they did not meet Rule 9’s heightened pleading standard for fraud allegations, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Roycroft’s complaint detailed an assortment of fraudulent practices “‘at least one or more’ of which [allegedly] rendered false or fraudulent the claims involved in the scheme.” Roycroft’s complaint then listed ten representative examples, giving the claim number, the client, the date, and what the bill was for: “A claim submitted to Medicaid for counseling services provided by Rebecca A. Wagers, CDCA, to client C.R. (000001056) on September 20, 2008).” If just one example satisfied Rule 9 then the complaint would survive.

But that setup—all-embracing allegations of fraudulent conduct coupled with a list of examples—wasn’t specific enough for Rule 9(b). As the Sixth Circuit glossed Rule 9’s terms, a complaint needs “the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud.” Roycroft’s fraudulent-conduct allegations “[spoke] in generalities, not specifics.” And “Roycroft [did] not allege that each and every claim was false in the same respect . . . . In a multifaceted scheme such as this one, the failure to allege which facet of the broader scheme is implicated in a representative claim fails to give defendants fair notice of the specific conduct with which they are charged.”

The Sixth Circuit’s decision is here, and Ms. Roycroft’s operative complaint is here.