Publication Date
2008
Abstract
In May 2007 the Supreme Court issued a landmark procedural decision construing and applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly the Court boldly retired the plaintiff-friendly pleading standard established over fifty years ago in Conley v. Gibson and replaced it with a potentially more stringent plausibility standard that requires a plaintiff to plead facts demonstrating the plausibility of each claim. Considerable confusion has surfaced in the lower courts over the extent of Twombly's influence, with some courts limiting the decision to its antitrust context and others applying the decision to all civil cases. This Note addresses that confusion by briefly exploring the historical background of pleading practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the trilogy of past Supreme Court cases that have interpreted Rule 8. It provides an in-depth look at the Twombly decision and a thorough discussion of the Court's problematic plausibility pleading standard. Finally, this Note identifies several policy considerations that assist in understanding Twombly's application to future cases.
Recommended Citation
Josephson, Matthew A.
(2008)
"Some Things Are Better Left Said: Pleading Practice after Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 42:
No.
3, Article 6.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol42/iss3/6