Pleading to meet Twombly Standard

From LegalLanding

Pleading to meet the Twombly Standard is very important after the Twombly standard. The court in Twombly was blah blah and you can see the opinion here.

Twombly

Since the early adoption of the “no set of facts” standard held in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support his claim which would entitle him to relief) “The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard” and “has earned its retirement”. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Based on the reasoning in Twombly, the following are the standards all federal courts apply when evaluating a complaint: “We do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. Quoting Twombly, in reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (A complaint must demonstrate a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief) a complaint “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id at 557. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S. , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) plausibility does not refer to the likelihood that a pleader will succeed in proving the allegations. Instead, it refers to whether the nonconclusory factual allegations, when assumed to be true, “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Stated in Iqbal, “legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint,” however, neither legal conclusions nor conclusory statements are themselves sufficient, without presenting facts that are plausible on their face to support each element of a claim. The facts in a complaint need not be detailed, although mere labels and conclusions will not be sufficient for a court to infer the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Cases interpreting Twombly standard

Ramsey v. Caruso W.D.Mich 2010.(proper citation needed)

Two principles Ramsey applied interpreting Twombly:

First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice …

Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.

Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss ... Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not “show[n]”-“that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Pro se complaints

The following are cases involving self represented claimants whose complaints were dismissed, and reasoning by the court interpreting Twombly.

O'Neal v. Hennepin County MN District Court 2008 (proper citation needed)

Here the plaintiff's claim was dismissed because -

"Plaintiff's complaint is fatally defective, because he has not presented a comprehensible statement of historical facts, which if true, would support an actionable claim for relief."

"The complaint does not provide a coherent description of what, specifically, each named defendant allegedly did (or failed to do) that supposedly would entitle Plaintiff to legal redress."

Velez-Villaran v. Carico Intern., Inc. (proper citation needed)

Here, the court held that because, "the complaint is only approximately four sentences long and does not contain even a minimum set of facts from which the Court can ascertain jurisdiction. The only factual, non-conclusory statements plaintiff has written is that she worked with Carico International Inc., which is located in Toa Baja, Puerto Rico; that she resigned her position in the company; and that she suffered much in her life."

"As such, plaintiff has failed to include a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that she is entitled to relief, or a demand for the relief sought, all of which are required under Rule 8."

Hirpassa v. Albert (proper citation needed)

Here, pro se plaintiff alleged police officers used excessive force during an arrest. The court dismissed the complaint and held:

"Plaintiff's assertions are conclusory at best, and are not supported by any allegations as to the actual force used, physical contact between the parties, or physical harm or injury resulting from the arrest. It is not enough to allege that Defendant “used excessive force while arresting [Plaintiff].”"

Sullivan v. CTI Collection Services (proper citation needed)

"Here seem to be exactly the type of threadbare recitals that the Supreme Court sought to prevent in Iqbal. Plaintiff has merely recited the elements of the action. The Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to provide a short and plain statement of the facts upon which relief may be granted."