Basics of Pleading (continued); Contents of a Complaint Flashcards
Plausibility standard according to Twombly 2007
The plausibility standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) requires that a plaintiff’s complaint contain enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Key elements
Facial Plausibility:
The claim must contain sufficient factual content to allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.
The complaint must go beyond mere speculation or possibility.
More Than Conclusory Statements:
The complaint must provide factual allegations rather than just legal conclusions or bare assertions.
Example of insufficient pleading: “The defendant conspired to fix prices.”
Example of sufficient pleading: “Defendant A and Defendant B met on [specific date] to discuss and agree upon fixing prices for [specific product].”
Twombly’ case words
a plaintiff must allege facts that taken as true are suggestive of illegal conduct.
Two prong Twombly Test
- mere facts of allegations must be taken as true and on its face of illegal conduct.
- More than conclusory statements The fact that an allegation in the complaint is not just a restatement of the elements of the claim supports the conclusion that it is not conclusory.
Case: Holding in Twombly (not enough facts to state a claim which relief could be granted
The Supreme Court held that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss, a § 1 complaint must contain enough factual matter to suggest that an agreement was made, which the plaintiffs’ complaint did not.
Basic pleading
the complaint must contain subject matter jurisdiction
Short and plain statement of claims showing that the pleader is entitled to relief
Case: Ashcroft v Iqbal 2009
Background: Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani national, was detained following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He alleged that federal officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, adopted unconstitutional policies that led to his harsh detention based on his race, religion, and national origin.
Claims: Iqbal filed a lawsuit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, claiming violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Defendants’ Arguments: Ashcroft and Mueller moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Iqbal’s allegations were conclusory and failed to state a plausible claim for relief
The Supreme Court held (5-4) that Iqbal’s complaint did not meet the plausibility standard established in Twombly and dismissed the claims against Ashcroft and Mueller.
lausibility Standard:
Building on Twombly, the Court held that a complaint must state a claim that is plausible on its face, meaning it must allow the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.
Mere conclusory statements are insufficient; factual allegations must support the inference of wrongdoing.
Two-Step Framework:
The Court laid out a two-step process for evaluating pleadings:
Step 1: Identify and disregard legal conclusions in the complaint.
Step 2: Assess the remaining factual allegations to determine if they plausibly suggest entitlement to relief.
What do courts look at?
claim of relief
short and plain statement that the petitioner is entitled to relief.
What two concepts should the claim be
Legally sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of applicable rules of civil procedure
Factually sufficient if it alleges specific facts that support the claim
plausible pleading standard comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009).
It requires that a complaint provide sufficient factual allegations to make a claim plausible on its face, rather than merely possible or speculative. This standard governs motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Factual Sufficiency
The complaint must contain enough factual content to allow the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.
Legal conclusions or bare assertions unsupported by facts are insufficient.
Facial Plausibility
A claim has “facial plausibility” when the alleged facts allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct.
The court must assess whether the claims go beyond being merely speculative or conceivable to being plausible.
Two-Step Process for Analysis (Iqbal)
Step 1: Identify and disregard conclusory statements or mere legal conclusions stated in the complaint. These are not entitled to the presumption of truth.
Step 2: Evaluate the remaining factual allegations to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.
Dismissal if Not Plausible
If the factual allegations fail to cross the line from possibility to plausibility, the claim can be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
