Aric Hall v. Capella University

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2739 ___________________________

Aric W. Hall

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Capella University

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________

Submitted: May 20, 2019 Filed: May 23, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Aric Hall appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his diversity action alleging fraud and false advertising against Capella University. After de novo review,

1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

see Montin v. Moore, 846 F.3d 289, 292 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that Hall’s complaint did not plead his fraud or false advertising claims with the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (party must plead circumstances constituting fraud with particularity); E-Shops Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 678 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2012) (Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement applies to claims arising under Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.44 and 325F.69); Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778, 783 (8th Cir. 2009) (party alleging fraud must plead time, place, and contents of false representation, and identity of person making misrepresentation).

We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-