Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision that failed to require that a private plaintiff who claims securities fraud prove that the defendant's fraud caused an economic loss. The Court rejected the view that a plaintiff could simply allege in his complaint, and subsequently establish, that "the price" of the security "on the date of purchase was inflated because of the misrepresentation."

In an ordinary civil action, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). This rule allows and encourages brevity, but the complaint must say enough to give the defendant "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Dura Pharmaceuticals, 544 U.S. at 346 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the decision.