State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. James M. Liguori, M.D., P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a complaint that described in detail the fraudulent scheme alleged and provided examples of “many specific claims that plaintiff allege[d] were fraudulent” satisfied rule 9(b)
• finding complaint of no-fault scheme alleged fraudulent statements, the speaker, and why statements were fraudulent in part by attaching representative samples of submitted charges and list of examples
• finding insurance fraud claim predicated on hundreds of medically unnecessary tests and false diagnoses by a single doctor over nearly a decade to plausibly allege strong inference of fraudulent intent
• finding plaintiffs “clearly allege that they relied upon and were damaged by the false representations” where “the complaint specifically states that defendants ‘wrongfully obtained’ $1,000,000 from State Farm” through submitting fraudulent claims
• \[The d]efendants have not provided the status of the state court claims nor have they argued that those cases are further along than the case before this Court.\ (emphasis added)
• \The state law issues before this Court are not particularly complex and defendants have provided no reason why this forum would be an inappropriate place in which to decide them.\ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).