Memo to plaintiffs in federal court: You'll have to plead facts to support your claim in order to survive a motion to dismiss. A complaint reciting the elements of a claim and amounting to a series of legal conclusions is no longer adequate. Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, requiring a "short and plain statement of the claim," "does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Instead, legal conclusions must be supported by facts that are plausible - meaning facts that allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant is liable.
While Iqbal garners media attention for addressing immunity from claims of unlawful detention of Muslims after the 9/11 attacks, its interpretation of federal pleading rules will have an impact on all civil litigants for years to come.
Iqbal follows the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which first stated the more stringent pleading rules. Twombly was an antitrust case, and at the time it was unclear whether the heightened pleading requirements applied only to antitrust plaintiffs. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Iqbal, states that Twombly was not so limited, and applies to all civil complaints in federal court.
Comments