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 …

Unshielded: How The Police Can Become Touchable, Brandon Hasbrouck

Scholarly Articles

This Review proceeds in three Parts. First, Part I examines Shielded’s text, highlighting Schwartz’s analysis of the problem of unaccountable police, the many barriers to holding police accountable, and her proposed solutions. Part II then critically examines Schwartz’s work, examining pieces of the problem she left undiscussed and the relative shortcomings of her discussion of possible solutions. Finally, Part III takes an abolitionist approach, delving into potential nonreformist reforms and the solution of full abolition, as well as examining the most significant objection to abolitionist approaches: the problem of violence.

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

The Discrimination Presumption, Joseph Seiner

Faculty Publications

Employment discrimination is a fact in our society. Scientific studies continue to show that employer misconduct in the workplace is pervasive. This social science research is further supported by governmental data and litigation statistics. Even in the face of this evidence, however, it has never been more difficult to successfully bring a claim of employment discrimination. After the Supreme Court’s controversial decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), all civil litigants must sufficiently plead enough facts to give rise to a plausible claim. Empirical studies show that this …

The Parable Of The Forms, Samuel L. Bray

Journal Articles

This is a parable about the forms of action, code pleading, and the "civil action" of the Federal Rules.

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 …

I Could Have Been A Contender: Summary Jury Trial As A Means To Overcome Iqbal's Negative Effects Upon Pre-Litigation Communication, Negotiation And Early, Consensual Dispute Resolution, Nancy A. Welsh

Nancy Welsh

With its recent decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court may be intentionally or unintentionally “throwing the fight,” at least in the legal contests between many civil rights claimants and institutional defendants. The most obvious feared effect is reduction of civil rights claimants’ access to the expressive and coercive power of the courts. Less obviously, the Supreme Court may be effectively undermining institutions’ motivation to negotiate, mediate - or even communicate with and listen to - such claimants before they initiate legal action. Thus, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions have the potential to deprive …

Clarity And Confusion: Rico's Recent Trips To The United States Supreme Court, Randy D. Gordon

Randy D. Gordon

The complicated structure of the Racketeer and Corrupt Organization Act has bedeviled courts courts and litigants since its adoption four decades ago. Two questions have recurred with some frequency. First, is victim reliance an element of a civil RICO claim predicated on allegations of fraud? Second, what is the difference between an illegal association-in-fact and an ordinary civil conspiracy? In a series of three recent cases, the United States Supreme Court brought much needed clarity to the first question. But in another recent case, the Court upended decades of circuit-court precedent holding that an actionable association-in-fact must be embody a …

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.

Trying The Trial, Andrew S. Pollis

Faculty Publications

Lawyers routinely make strategic advocacy choices that reflect directly, if inferentially, on the credibility of their clients’ claims and defenses. But courts have historically been reluctant to admit evidence of litigation conduct, sometimes even expressing hostility at the very notion of doing so. This Article deconstructs that reluctance. It argues not only that litigation conduct has probative value, but also that there is social utility in subjecting lawyer behavior to juror scrutiny.

Material Facts In The Debate Over Twombly And Iqbal, Jonah B. Gelbach

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper presents empirical evidence concerning the adjudication of defendant-filed summary judgment motions from nearly 2,000 randomly selected employment discrimination and contracts cases to try to assess Twombly and Iqbal’s performance in filtering cases according to merit. I first explain how such data might be helpful in such an assessment, taking into account the possibility that parties’ behavior might have changed following Twombly and Iqbal.

I then report results indicating that even using this large collection of data -- the most comprehensive data assembled to date to address this question -- we cannot tell whether “TwIqbal” …

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.

Inventing Tests, Destabilizing Systems, Kevin M. Clermont, Stephen C. Yeazell

Kevin M. Clermont

The U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized the law on pleading by its suggestive Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and definitive Ashcroft v. Iqbal. But these decisions did more than redefine the pleading rules: by inventing a foggy test for the threshold stage of every lawsuit, they have destabilized the entire system of civil litigation. This destabilization should rekindle a wide conversation about fundamental choices made in designing our legal system. Those choices are debatable. Thus, the bone this Article picks with the Court is not that it took the wrong path for pleading, but that it blazed a new and unclear …

Health Care Law, Sean P. Byrne, Garrett Hooe

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Burdens Of Pleading, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

To preview my argument briefly, plausibility pleading formally asks judges—for the first time since the advent of the Federal Rules—to engage in a merits-based analysis at the pleading stage based on their “judicial experience and common sense.” Judges are expected to engage in this inquiry with only the factual allegations in the complaint at their disposal. Putting aside the difficulty of conducting this analysis under the best of circumstances, our federal judges have extremely limited judicial experience to apply to merits-based decisions. The number of trials, the ultimate arbiter of merit, has fallen precipitously in the past fifty years. Trials …

Mapping Supreme Court Doctrine: Civil Pleading, Scott Dodson, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

This essay, adapted from the video presentation available on Vimeo as #89845875, graphically depicts the genealogy and evolution of federal civil pleading standards in U.S. Supreme Court opinions over time. We show that the standard narrative — of a decline in pleading liberality from Conley to Twombly to Iqbal — is complicated by both progenitors and progeny. We therefore offer a fuller picture of the doctrine of Rule 8 pleading that ought to be of use to judges and practitioners in federal court. We also hope, through the video presentation, to introduce a new visual format for academic scholarship that …

The Fourth Era Of American Civil Procedure, Thomas O. Main, Stephen N. Subrin

Scholarly Works

Every contemporary American lawyer who has engaged in litigation is familiar with the now fifty-four-volume treatise, Federal Practice and Procedure. Both of that treatise’s named authors, Charles Alan Wright and Arthur Miller, have mourned the death of a Federal Rules regime that they spent much of their professional lives explaining and often celebrating. Wright shared a sense of gloom about federal procedure that he compared to the setting before World War I. Miller has also published a series of articles that chronicled his grief.

We agree that something has fundamentally changed. In fact, we believe that we are in …

The Death Of Inference, Andrew S. Pollis

Faculty Publications

This Article examines a disturbing trend in civil litigation: the demise of the jury’s historic prerogative to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence. Judges have arrogated to themselves the power to dismiss cases if they find the proffered inferenc

Screening Out Innovation: The Merits Of Meritless Litigation, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Courts and legislatures often conflate merit-less and frivolous cases when balancing the desire to keep courthouse doors open to novel or unlikely claims against the concern that entertaining ultimately unsuccessful litigation will prove too costly for courts and defendants. Recently, significant procedural and substantive barriers to civil litigation have been informed by judicial and legislative assumptions about the costs of entertaining merit-less and frivolous litigation. The prevailing wisdom is that eliminating merit-less and frivolous claims as early in a case’s trajectory as possible will focus scarce resources on the truly meritorious cases, thereby ensuring that available remedies are properly distributed …

Mapping Supreme Court Doctrine: Civil Pleading, Scott Dodson, Colin Starger

Scott Dodson

This essay, adapted from the video presentation available at http://vimeo.com/89845875, graphically depicts the genealogy and evolution of federal civil pleading standards in U.S. Supreme Court opinions over time. We show that the standard narrative—of a decline in pleading liberality from Conley to Twombly to Iqbal—is complicated by both progenitors and progeny. We therefore offer a fuller picture of the doctrine of Rule 8 pleading that ought to be of use to judges and practitioners in federal court. We also hope to introduce a new visual format for academic scholarship that capitalizes on the virtues of narration, graphics, mapping, online accessibility, …

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 …