Hall v. Bell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

SYLVESTER C. HALL PLAINTIFF

Vv. No. 3:25-cv-14-DPM

PHIL REYNOLDS and BOOKER PENNINGTON DEFENDANTS

ORDER Pennington’s unopposed motion to dismiss, Doc. 27, is granted. Hall alleges that Pennington embezzled more than $25,000 from him by “committing fraudulent transactions and unauthorized issuance of checks” from Hall’s accounts. Doc. 6 at 2. Because these claims are rooted in fraud, Hall must “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); see also Collins v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 117 F.4th 1010, 1017 (8th Cir. 2024). That includes the “who, what, where, when, and how.” United States ex rel. Costner v. United States, 317 F.3d 883, 888 (8th Cir. 2003). Hall’s fraud allegations lack many of these particulars. His claims against Pennington are therefore dismissed without prejudice, and Pennington is dismissed as a defendant.

So Ordered. tell ()- D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge (la fre 2025

_2-