Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 363 (1966)
Dora Surowitz (plaintiff), a Polish immigrant with limited English and no formal education, bought $2,000 of Hilton Hotels Corp. (defendant) stock in 1957 with help from her son-in-law Irving Brilliant, a professional investment advisor with a Harvard law degree. Years later, after Hilton announced a stock buyback, Brilliant investigated and concluded Hilton was engaged in fraud, explained this to Mrs. Surowitz, and she agreed to file a derivative suit, verifying the complaint under then-Rule 23(b) after Brilliant explained it to her. At her deposition, Mrs. Surowitz plainly did not understand the complaint or the lawsuit's substance and had simply relied on Brilliant's explanation in signing her verification; the district court dismissed the case on that basis, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning the complaint's truth was irrelevant given her apparent ignorance.
Whether, under Rule 23(b), a plaintiff may verify her complaint not based on her own personal knowledge and understanding, but based on the knowledge of a trusted advisor or counsel.