Del. R. Ch. Ct. 9

As amended through November 14, 2024

Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

(a) Capacity or Authority to Sue; Legal Existence.

(1)In General. Except when required to show that the Court has jurisdiction, a pleading need not allege:

(A) a party's capacity to sue or be sued;

(B) a party's authority to sue or be sued in a representative capacity; or

(C) the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party.

(2)Raising Those Issues. To raise any of those issues, a party must do so by a specific denial, which must state any supporting facts that are peculiarly within the party's knowledge.

(b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.

(c) Conditions Precedent. In pleading conditions precedent, it suffices to allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or been performed. But when denying that a condition precedent has occurred or been performed, a party must do so with particularity.

(d) Official Document or Act. In pleading an official document or official act, it suffices to allege that the document was legally issued or the act legally done.

(e) Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or a board or officer, it suffices to plead the judgment or decision without showing jurisdiction to render it.

(f) Time and Place. An allegation of time or place is material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading.

(g) Special Damages. If an item of special damage is claimed, it must be specifically stated.

Del. R. Ch. Ct. 9

Amended May 31, 2024, effective 6/14/2024; amended July 12, 2024, effective 7/12/2024.

Comment

In 2024, Rule 9 was revised to align its language to the extent possible with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 so that authorities interpreting the federal rule could be cited more easily as persuasive authority for the interpretation of Rule 9.

No substantive change in the interpretation of the rule was intended, and prior Delaware authorities interpreting the rule remain applicable.