Aric W. 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[Unpublished]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,
1The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

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-

-- 2 of 2 --