should be done with particularity. On the other hand, negligent misrepresentation is usually shown by establishing what the defendant should have known or did not do, not what it knew at the time. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to allege negligence—what the defendant did not do— generally. That general allegation is sufficient for notice pleading of negligent misrepresentation. Third, the Supreme Court has recently made the standards for dismissal under rule 12(b)(6) more rigorous. Notice pleading under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1977 (2007), has real teeth. There is no sound reason to give corporate defendants accused of negligent misrepresentation more protection that doctors accused of malpractice or automobile operators of neglige 2, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979)(<HOLDING>). On the other hand, New Mexico law has
holding that a forum is not required to extend sovereign immunity to other states sued in its courts but should extend immunity under the principle of comity unless doing so would violate the forums public policies holding that a judgment of another states court is entitled to full faith and credit j when the judgment is considered final under the laws of the rendering state holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to apply another states law in violation of its own legitimate public policy holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a forum to apply the sovereign immunity doctrine of another state if such an application would violate the forums legitimate public policies holding this rule does not deny full faith and credit