Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, regardless of widespread fraud, the failure of witnesses to tie knowledge of the fraud to individually named defendants prohibited finding of scienter
• holding that a plaintiff must plead “the who, what, when, where, and how” under Rule 9(b)
• holding that the complaint provided an adequate foundation for the witnesses’ statements where it described their positions in the defendant’s business, which might have exposed them to the alleged fraudulent practices
• holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege scienter because, in part, the “amended complaint affords no basis for inferring that the individual defendants would have heard about these whistleblower complaints during the class period”
• noting that “Rule 9(b) does not require a plaintiff to allege specific facts related to the defendant’s state of mind”
• explaining that “simply alleging that a widespread fraud may have occurred is not enough” to connect fraudulent acts to leaders of a company

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).