In Hinman v. ValleyCrest
Landscape, Inc. and Aquatic Design & Engineering, Inc., No.
3:19-cv-551, 2020 WL 434161 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2020), the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss the fraud claims alleged against
the engineer for lack of specificity in the pleading.
Plaintiff, the homeowner, filed suit against ValleyCrest Landscape Development,
Inc. (“ValleyCrest”), BrightView Landscape Development, Inc. (“BrightView”),
and Aquatic Design & Engineering, Inc. (“Aquatic”) for claims
related to a $1 million pool and landscaping project (“the Project”). The Complaint asserted
various claims, including fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment. ValleyCrest,
BrightView and Aquatic all filed Motions to Dismiss, arguing the pleading
standard for fraud had not been satisfied because the alleged fraud was not
pled with particularity. The Court granted the Motions, agreeing the Complaint
did not state with particularity the elements for fraud.
The Court found
the Complaint failed to allege the engineer was a party to the contract with
Plaintiff or had any involvement in negotiating the terms of the contract. The Court
found the Complaint failed to state with particularity a false statement of
fact made by Defendants, nor any statements upon which Plaintiff relied. The Court
explained the claim failed to plead a false statement material to the Plaintiff’s
decision to contract with the design-builder.
The Court emphasized that claims based on fraud pose “a high risk of abusive litigation” and thus, the allegations must be stated with the utmost specificity. This case continues the federal court’s trend to dismiss vague and broad fraud allegations asserted against design professionals.
