(a) Capacity. – Any party not a natural person shall make an affirmative averment showing its legal existence and capacity to sue. Any party suing in any representative capacity shall make an affirmative averment showing his capacity and authority to sue. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, he shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge.
Rule 9.Pleading special matters.
Last amended 2011 · Last verified July 3, 2026
In one sentenceRule 9 requires a short list of matters — capacity, fraud, conditions precedent, prior judgments, special damages, libel and slander, medical malpractice, and punitive damages — to be pleaded with more particularity than Rule 8’s ordinary notice standard, while allowing conditions precedent, official acts, and states of mind to be alleged generally.
Full Text of Rule 9
(b) Fraud, duress, mistake, condition of the mind. – In all averments of fraud, duress or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.
(c) Conditions precedent. – In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity.
(d) Official document or act. – In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.
(e) Judgment. – In pleading a judgment, decision or ruling of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment, decision or ruling without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.
(f) Time and place. – For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a pleading, averments of time and place are material and shall be considered like all other averments of material matter.
(g) Special damage. – When items of special damage are claimed each shall be averred.
(h) Private statutes. – In pleading a private statute or right derived therefrom it is sufficient to refer to the statute by its title or the day of its ratification if ratified before January 1, 1996, or the date it becomes law if it becomes law on or after January 1, 1996, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice of it.
(i) Libel and slander. –
(1) In an action for libel or slander it is not necessary to state in the complaint any extrinsic facts for the purpose of showing the application to the plaintiff of the defamatory matter out of which the claim for relief arose, but it is sufficient to state generally that the same was published or spoken concerning the plaintiff, and if such allegation is controverted, the plaintiff is bound to establish on trial that it was so published or spoken.
(2) The defendant may in his answer allege both the truth of the matter charged as defamatory, and any mitigating circumstances to reduce the amount of damages; and whether he proves the justification or not, he may give in evidence the mitigating circumstances.
(j) Medical malpractice. – Any complaint alleging medical malpractice by a health care provider pursuant to G.S. 90-21.11(2)a. in failing to comply with the applicable standard of care under G.S. 90-21.12 shall be dismissed unless:
(1) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care and all medical records pertaining to the alleged negligence that are available to the plaintiff after reasonable inquiry have been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care;
(2) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care and all medical records pertaining to the alleged negligence that are available to the plaintiff after reasonable inquiry have been reviewed by a person that the complainant will seek to have qualified as an expert witness by motion under Rule 702(e) of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care, and the motion is filed with the complaint; or
(3) The pleading alleges facts establishing negligence under the existing common-law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Upon motion by the complainant prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, a resident judge of the superior court for a judicial district in which venue for the cause of action is appropriate under G.S. 1-82 or, if no resident judge for that judicial district is physically present in that judicial district, otherwise available, or able or willing to consider the motion, then any presiding judge of the superior court for that judicial district may allow a motion to extend the statute of limitations for a period not to exceed 120 days to file a complaint in a medical malpractice action in order to comply with this Rule, upon a determination that good cause exists for the granting of the motion and that the ends of justice would be served by an extension. The plaintiff shall provide, at the request of the defendant, proof of compliance with this subsection through up to ten written interrogatories, the answers to which shall be verified by the expert required under this subsection. These interrogatories do not count against the interrogatory limit under Rule 33.
Amendment History
(1967, c. 954, s. 1; 1995, c. 20, s. 10; c. 309, s. 2; c. 514, s. 3; 1998-217, s. 61; 2001-121, s. 1; 2011-400, s. 3.)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 9 carves out exceptions to Rule 8’s relaxed notice pleading for a handful of matters that still call for more detail. A party other than a natural person must affirmatively plead its legal existence and capacity to sue, and anyone suing in a representative capacity must plead that capacity and authority; a challenge to another party’s existence, capacity, or authority must itself be raised by a specific negative averment with supporting particulars. Fraud, duress, and mistake must be pleaded with particularity as to the circumstances, though malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of mind may still be averred generally.
Conditions precedent may be pleaded with a general averment that all conditions have been performed or have occurred — a denial of that averment, by contrast, must be specific and particular. An official document or act may be pleaded by averring only that it was issued or done in compliance with law, and a judgment or ruling of a court or tribunal may be pleaded without setting out the basis for its jurisdiction. Special damages must each be separately averred, and a private statute may be pleaded by referring to its title or ratification date, which puts the court on judicial notice of it. In an action for libel or slander, the complaint need not plead the extrinsic facts connecting the defamatory matter to the plaintiff; a general allegation that it was published or spoken concerning the plaintiff is enough, subject to proof at trial, and the defendant may plead both truth and mitigating circumstances in the answer.
A complaint alleging medical malpractice must specifically assert that the medical care and available records have been reviewed by a qualified expert witness willing to testify that the standard of care was not met — or must instead allege facts supporting the common-law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur — or the complaint is dismissed; a resident superior court judge may extend the statute of limitations by up to 120 days for good cause to allow that review to be completed. Finally, a demand for punitive damages must be specifically stated, apart from the dollar amount, with the aggravating factor supporting the award pleaded with particularity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a complaint have to explain exactly why the plaintiff has capacity to sue?
Only if the plaintiff is not a natural person, or is suing in a representative capacity — Rule 9(a) then requires an affirmative averment of that capacity and authority. A challenge to capacity must likewise be raised by specific negative averment.
How specifically must fraud be pleaded in North Carolina?
The circumstances constituting the fraud must be stated with particularity, though the accompanying state of mind — malice, intent, or knowledge — may still be averred generally.
What must a medical malpractice complaint include to avoid dismissal?
It must specifically assert that the medical care and available records were reviewed by a qualified expert witness willing to testify the standard of care was not met, or that such review is forthcoming under a court-approved extension, or it must allege facts supporting res ipsa loquitur.
Source & verification. The rule text and history citation are reproduced verbatim from the
official North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 1A (N.C. R. Civ. P. 9). Enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly (S.L. 1967, c. 954, codified at N.C.G.S. § 1A-1). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 3, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: pleading fraud with particularitycapacity to sue or be suedconditions precedentrule 9(j) certificationmedical malpractice expert certificationres ipsa loquitur pleadinglibel and slander pleadingspecial damagespunitive damages pleading requirementspleading a private statute