Also known as: stating with particularity · stated with particularity · states with particularity · particularity requirement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A pleading obligation that requires a party to allege concrete facts identifying the circumstances of fraud, mistake, or demand futility rather than offering only general or conclusory assertions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sabrina Shah sues Sterling Dynamics alleging that the company knowingly shipped defective components while representing they met contract specifications. Her complaint lists the exact dates of the shipments, the specific false statements in the invoices, and the internal emails showing the defects were known before delivery. The court denies the motion to dismiss because the allegations supply the required factual detail.
Sydney Santos files a class action claiming corporate officers concealed inventory shortfalls that inflated earnings reports. The complaint identifies each misleading statement by date and speaker, then supplies internal audit memos showing the officers knew the true figures. The court finds the facts create a strong inference of scienter and allows the case to proceed.
Spencer Silver alleges that misleading statements about drug trial results caused his stock losses. The complaint details the corrective disclosure date and the immediate price drop that followed, linking the revelation directly to the prior misstatements. The court holds that the particularized loss allegations satisfy the pleading threshold.
Samantha Stone moves to quash a material-witness warrant issued against her. The supporting affidavit states only that she possesses unspecified information about a suspect and might leave the country. The court finds the affidavit fails to state with particularity the expected testimony or its materiality and quashes the warrant.
Sofia Stern sues her former employer alleging termination on the basis of national origin. The complaint recites only that she is of Middle Eastern descent and that similarly situated employees were retained. The court dismisses the claim because the bare assertions do not supply the factual particularity needed to survive a motion to dismiss.
Seth Shapiro alleges age discrimination after his termination. The complaint states his age, the date of discharge, and that younger employees kept their positions, without any further factual support. The court dismisses the claim because the allegations fail to state with particularity the circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.
The complaint must allege the exact date the demand was sent, its precise content, and the substance of the general partner's response. General assertions that a demand occurred are insufficient. These details allow the court to determine whether the demand requirement was satisfied before the derivative suit proceeds.
Supporting sources
…mind [to] be alleged generally.” But “generally” is a relative term. In the context of Rule 9, it is to be compared to the particularity requirement applicable to fraud or mistake. Rule 9 merely excuses a party from pleading discriminatory intent under an elevated pleading standard. It does not give him license to evade the less rigid —…
…Rule 9(b) applies to “all averments of fraud or mistake”; it requires that “the circumstances constituting fraud . . . be stated with particularity
…737, 751 (CA6 1999). [^maj-3]: "In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity
…the parallel, which escapes us as well. The principal evil of the general warrant was addressed by the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement
…statement; that they set forth the facts “on which [a] belief” that a
The plaintiff must allege particularized facts showing why any demand would have been futile, such as specific conflicts that disable the decision makers from exercising independent judgment. A bare statement that the general partner is conflicted does not suffice. The facts must demonstrate that the decision makers cannot fairly consider the demand.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must allege with particularity facts showing the committee's inquiry was not reasonable or was not conducted in good faith. Conclusory claims of bias or arbitrariness are inadequate. Concrete details about conflicts, omitted witnesses, or ignored documents are necessary to contest the motion.
Supporting sources
When the plaintiff alleges with particularity that a majority of the board lacked qualified directors, the corporation bears the burden of proving the committee's determination met statutory standards. Absent such particularized allegations, the plaintiff retains the burden. The allegations must identify concrete conflicts or relationships that disqualify the directors.
Supporting sources