Rille, et al v. Accenture LLP, et al

Filing 279

ORDER denying 248 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 7/24/09. (bkp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. NORMAN RILLE AND NEAL ROBERTS v. ACCENTURE LLP, et al. ORDER Pending is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain New Allegations From the United States' First Amended Complaint in Intervention (Doc. No. 248). The United States has responded,1 and Defendant has replied.2 For the reasons set out below, Defendant's Motion is DENIED. Defendant asserts that paragraphs 71-80 of the United States' First Amended Complaint in Intervention should be dismissed because those paragraphs do not allege fraud with sufficient particularity to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).3 As Defendant pointed out in its brief, "[o]ne of the purposes of 9(b) is to put a defendant on notice of the alleged fraud so that it may defend itself."4 4:04CV00985-WRW DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFFS 1 Doc. No. 263. Doc. No. 268. Defendant also filed a Notice in connection with its Motion. The Notice included as attachments orders and a transcript from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in which a similar case by Plaintiff was pending against a different defendant. In the Virginia case, the court dismissed counts 1-4 of the United States' complaint in intervention. 3 2 Doc. No. 249. Id. 1 4 Paragraphs 71-78 of the Amended Complaint in Intervention describe alleged anticompetitive activity by Accenture. Those paragraphs include dates and names of the companies involved.5 Paragraphs 72, 73, and 75 allege that "[o]n June 18, 2002, Accenture contacted the DITCO contracting officer . . .";6 "[o]n September 11, 2002, Accenture emailed the DITCO contracting officer withdrawing its interest in bidding";7 and "[o]n July 31, 2003, Accenture management sent an email to NCR management . . . ."8 Paragraph 78 alleges a phone call between Accenture and NCR on August 29, 2003, as well as the alleged result of that call -- a $200,000 payment from NCR to Accenture on April 27, 2004, in exchange for Accenture not bidding on a contract.9 I find that the information in paragraphs 71-78 and 80 contain sufficient information to put Defendant on notice enough to be able to defend itself, and otherwise meet Rule 9(b)'s requirements. I further find that the alleged actions in those paragraphs set out a representative example, and, thus, paragraph 79 is also sufficiently pled. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 248) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2009. /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 Doc. No. 227. Id. at para. 72. Id. at para. 73. Id. at para. 75. Id. at para. 78. 2 6 7 8 9

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?