Law Commons^™

Failing To Learn The Lessons Of Madoff: Problems With Applying Iqbal To Fraud Claims, Howard Gutman, Chris Garino

University of Massachusetts Law Review

The Iqbal standard requires all civil actions filed in federal courts to provide detailed proof at the pleading stage for the claim to proceed. Under this standard, cases are adjudicated without the aid of discovery or deposition of witnesses. Cases are decided at the pleading stage based on the documents and statements provided by the one accused of fraud. The tools to uncover deception are not available at this stage. This article argues that the Iqbal pleading standard fails to allow civil courts to adequately detect and adjudicate fraud claims. This article explores fraudulent financial schemes, the Iqbal standard, the …

The Qui Tam Question: Proper Pleading Requirements For Relators Under The Fca, P. Cullen Mcdonald

Louisiana Law Review

The article offers information on the provisions of the False Claims Act in the U.S. including its history and complexities relating to lawsuits and pleading requirements.

The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi

Washington Law Review

Environmental plaintiffs often face challenges when pleading their claims. This is due to difficulty in obtaining the particular facts needed to establish causation, and thus liability. In turn, this difficulty inhibits their ability to vindicate their rights. Prior to the shift in pleading standards created by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, often informally referred to as “Twiqbal,” plaintiffs could assert their claims through the simplified notice pleading standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson. This allowed plaintiffs to gain access to discovery, which aided in proving their claims.

The current heightened pleading standard …

The Parable Of The Forms, Samuel L. Bray

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

It might be good for each department to have its own form, or it might be better to have one form for the whole campus. That is an open question. It depends on how different the repair requests are in different departments, and on the value of specialization. It depends on whether we want some complexity about the choice of forms or if we want radical simplicity about the number of forms, with all of the complexity residing within a single form.

So, too, it might be good to have different forms of action. That way, everyone knows upfront …

Equity In American And Jewish Law, Itzchak E. Kornfeld , Ph.D.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

A Plan For Reforming Federal Pleading, Discovery, And Pretrial Merits Review, David Rosenberg, Anne Brown, Jaehyun Oh, Benjamin Taylor

Vanderbilt Law Review

We propose a fundamental restructuring of the federal civil pretrial process to address its great expense and unreliability in resolving cases on their merits-problems largely attributable to discovery. The proposed reforms establish an affirmative-disclosure mandate that sharply reduces the role of discovery by transferring most of the parties' burden of fully revealing discoverable matter, favorable and unfavorable, to their pleadings. To effectuate the new function for pleadings, the reformed process replaces Rules 12(b)(6), (c), and (f) with pretrial merits review conducted exclusively pursuant to the procedures and standards for summary judgment under Rule 56. Responding parties will be required to …

Pleading, For The Future: Conversations After Iqbal, Lee H. Rosenthal

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson

Seattle University Law Review

The past decade has not been kind to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules). From the growth of summary judgment as a mechanism to let judges instead of juries determine facts, to the love–hate relationship with class actions, judicial interpretations of the Rules have revealed a trend toward complicating the ability of plaintiffs to find redress for their claims. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the shifting standards of pleading requirements under Rule 8. Much has been written by academics and practitioners alike regarding the ripples caused by Twombly and Iqbal. Although the Court would like to …

Recent Developments: Sharp V. State: Despite Not Formally Objecting, Defense Counsel Properly Preserved The Issue Of Whether The Circuit Court Inappropriately Weighed Defendant's Decision Not To Plead Guilty At Sentencing; The Circuit Court Did Not Impermissibly Consider Defendant's Rejection Of The Plea Offer At Sentencing., Colin Campbell

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that defense counsel’s statements conveyed an objection to the circuit court’s perceived consideration of the defendant’s decision not to plead guilty at sentencing. Sharp v. State, 446 Md. 669, 113 A.3d 1089 (2016). As a result, the court held that defense counsel sufficiently preserved the issue for appellate review. Id. at 684, 113 A.3d at 1098. Ultimately, though, the circuit court’s statements at sentencing did not give rise to the inference of an impermissible consideration. Id. at 701, 113 A.3d at 1108.

Reconstructing Pleading: Twombly, Iqbal, And The Limited Role Of The Plausibility Inquiry, Stephen R. Brown

Akron Law Review

Although critics have generally failed to appreciate the limited role of the plausibility inquiry, it is still necessary in some cases. I will therefore, in the discussion of plausibility within the three-step framework, provide a general defense of Twombly and Iqbal by recasting the decisions in light of a plaintiff‘s burden to certify to a court that the factual contentions in a complaint ―will likely have evidentiary support under Rule 11. Under this view of the plausibility inquiry, a court acts as a neutral third-party that simply evaluates a plaintiff‘s ability to predict her own likelihood of success. Instead, a …

Summary Judgment, Pleading, And The Future Of Transsubstantive Procedure, Stephen B. Burbank

Akron Law Review

David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice, University of Pennsylvania Law School. This article is based on remarks made at the 2010 meeting of the AALS Section on Litigation.

Diverging Paths: The Minnesota Supreme Court’S Decision To Reject The “Plausibility” Pleading Standard In Walsh V. U.S. Bank, Michael Sheran

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recent Development: State V. Hunt: A Petitioner Who Files For A Writ Of Actual Innocence Has The Right To A Hearing Based On Newly Discovered Evidence When The Pleading Substantially Complies With Md. Crim. Proc. § 8-301 And Md. Rule 4-332, Daniel M. Weir

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, when petitioners substantially complied with the pleading requirements under Section 8-301 of the Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article (“section 8-301”) and Maryland Rule 4-332.

Health Care Law, Sean P. Byrne, Garrett Hooe

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

9(B) Or Not 9(B)? That Is The Question: How To Plead Negligent Misrepresentation In The Post-Twombly Era, Andrew Todres

Fordham Law Review

Perhaps nothing is more important to a litigant bringing an action in federal court than knowing the relevant pleading standard for his or her underlying claims. Ever since the inception of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one of two pleading standards have applied to common law claims: the Rule 8(a)(2) standard, requiring a short and plain statement demonstrating entitlement to relief, or the Rule 9(b) standard, demanding that allegations of fraud or mistake be pled with particularity. At the intersection of these two pleading standards is the common law claim of negligent misrepresentation. Courts across the country have long …

The Odd State Of Twiqbal Plausibility In Pleading Affirmative Defenses , William M. Janssen

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Elementary Pleading, Charles B. Campbell

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Past The Pillars Of Hercules: Francis Bacon And The Science Of Rulemaking, Daniel R. Coquillette

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The parallels between Bacon's career and that of Edward H. Cooper are, of course, obvious. Bacon was one of the great legal minds of his day. Unlike the common-law judges who formed the law by deciding cases, Bacon expressed his greatness in writing brilliant juristic treatises and, as Lord Chancellor, drafting one of the first modern rule systems, the Ordinances in Chancery (1617-1620). Indeed, my thesis is that Bacon invented modern, scientific rulemaking by fusing his new theories of inductive, empirical research with the traditions of equitable pleading and is, in fact, the intellectual forbearer of the likes of Charles …

Determining The Proper Pleading Standard Under The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Of 1995 After In Re Silicon Graphics , Erin Brady

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Twombly Is Good Law (But Poorly Drafted) And Iqbal Will Be Overturned, Luke Meier

Indiana Law Journal

The conventional wisdom with regard to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal is that these two cases work together to usher in a new era of pleading. This reading of the cases, however, is wrong. In reality, Twombly was a valid application of the uncontroversial principle that a complaint must describe the real-world events on which the suit is based with some degree of factual specificity. The Iqbal opinion, unfortunately, mangled this concept by applying it to a complaint that described the real-world events on which the suit was based with sufficient …

The Twombly Revolution?, Douglas G.. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court issued a decision that has been described as nothing less than "startling". In a 7-2 decision, the Court provided an interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that has significantly increased the level of scrutiny that federal courts must apply in determining the sufficiency of the pleadings. While some have characterized the Court's decision as "vague" or poorly-reasoned, this article defends the Twombly decision as both a correct and welcome development in the law regarding the appropriate pleading standard under Rule 8(a). The article argues that the Court's decision is …

In Defense Of Plausibility: Ashcroft V. Iqbal And What The Plausibility Standard Really Means , Daniel W. Robertson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rise Of The Common Law Of Federal Pleading: Iqbal, Twombly, And The Application Of Judicial Experience, Henry S. Noyes

Villanova Law Review

SINCE 1938, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules or Rules) has set the standard for how much a plaintiff must allege at the outset of a lawsuit in order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim. Rule 8 requires that a plaintiff must include in the complaint "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Federal courts developed a well-settled set of principles to apply when deciding whether to dismiss a claim. Among these principles are the following: (1) the plaintiffs factual allegations are accepted …

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walk, Andrew P. Sherrod

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. Specifically, the article discusses opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia from June 2010through June 2011 addressing civil procedure topics; significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period; and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2011 session that relates to civil practice.

Twombly And Iqbal: The Introduction Of A Heightened Pleading Standard, Shira A. Sheindlin Honorable

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedure's Ambiguity, Mark Moller

Indiana Law Journal

By leaving the meaning of a statute—or procedural rule—undecided, ambiguous appellate decisions create space for lower courts to adopt a blend of conflicting approaches, yielding an average result that trims between competing preferences. While compromising in this way may seem to flout basic norms of good judging, this Article shows that opaque “compromise” opinions have plausible normative appeal, given premises about good interpretation often labeled “pluralist.” Judicial pluralists think courts should decide cases in ways interest groups would, hypothetically, accept. To demonstrate the pluralist appeal of opaque decisions, I develop, in turn, two related claims: First, interest groups, under the …

Iqbal "Plausibility" In Pharmaceutical And Medical Device Litigation, William M. Janssen

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Costs Of Heightened Pleading, Alexander A. Reinert

Indiana Law Journal

In Conley v. Gibson, the Supreme Court announced its commitment to a liberal pleading regime in federal civil cases, and for decades thereafter was steadfast in resisting ad hoc heightened pleading rules adopted by lower courts. Thus, from 1957 until a few years ago, most litigants could count on surviving a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim so long as their pleading provided some minimal notice to the defendant of the nature of their claim. Enter Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. Iqbal and Twombly, by many accounts, two-stepped the Court from …

The Key To The Courthouse Door: The Effect Of Ashcroft V. Iqbal And The Heightened Pleading Standard, Michael Eaton

Santa Clara Law Review

No abstract provided.