Pleading Standards
Rule
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” (Rule 8(a)(2)). Under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a complaint must allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Elements / Test
Twombly/Iqbal Two-Step:
- Identify and disregard legal conclusions and formulaic recitations of elements — these are not entitled to the assumption of truth
- Assess plausibility of remaining well-pleaded factual allegations: do they permit a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable? Plausibility requires more than possibility; “naked assertions” are insufficient
Rule 8 General Standard:
- Short and plain statement of the claim
- Short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief
- Demand for judgment
- Alternative and inconsistent pleadings allowed (Rule 8(d))
Heightened Pleading:
- Fraud and mistake must be pleaded with particularity (Rule 9(b)): circumstances constituting fraud — who, what, when, where, how
- Malice, intent, knowledge may be alleged generally (Rule 9(b))
- Securities fraud: PSLRA imposes statutory heightened pleading requirements
Defendant’s Response:
- Must respond within 21 days of service (Rule 12(a))
- Admissions and denials; must deny specifically or risk admission (Rule 8(b))
- Affirmative defenses must be raised in the answer or they may be waived (Rule 8(c))
Exceptions
- Pro se pleadings construed liberally (Erickson v. Pardus)
- Rule 9(b) heightened standard applies regardless of Twombly/Iqbal for fraud claims
- Certain statutory claims may have their own pleading requirements
Policy
- Conley v. Gibson (1957) “no set of facts” standard rejected by Twombly as too permissive
- Twombly: discovery is expensive; gatekeeping function prevents fishing expeditions in antitrust/complex litigation
- Iqbal: extends Twombly to all civil claims, including constitutional torts
- Criticism: makes it harder for plaintiffs to survive dismissal before discovery reveals facts in defendant’s control
Key Cases
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly — overrules Conley; plausibility standard announced for antitrust claim
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal — extends Twombly to all civil cases; two-step analysis; discriminatory intent must be plausible
- Conley v. Gibson (overruled) — “no set of facts” standard; notice pleading era