MBE Rules · Civil Procedure
Rule 9(b) — particularity for fraud / mistake
FRCP 9(b)
The rule
Allegations of fraud or mistake must be pled with particularity — the who, what, when, where, and how. Conditions of mind (malice, intent, knowledge) may be alleged generally.
In plain English
When you accuse someone of fraud or a mistake in a lawsuit, you need to provide specific details about what happened. You can't just make vague claims.
Worked example
The plaintiff claims the defendant lied about a car's accident history. To meet Rule 9(b), the plaintiff specifies the date, the place, and the exact false statement made by the defendant.
Memory hook
Fraud needs details, not drama. Plead the who, what, when, where, and how for fraud or mistake; mind states can be vague.
The trap
Students think: General allegations suffice for fraud. Wrong, because Rule 9(b) demands specifics. The actual test is detailed 'who, what, when, where, and how'.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: complaint includes vague fraud claims. Trap: students miss the need for particularity. Look for specifics in the fact pattern to determine sufficiency.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.