While the court's two-pronged approach might bring more consistency on how a pleading is analyzed, it remains to be seen with respect to innumerable claims as to how plausibility might be sufficiently pleaded.
Celebrating only its second anniversary last month, the Supreme Court's Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly decision, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), which directly addressed the proper standard for pleading an antitrust conspiracy based on parallel conduct, has already become ubiquitous in federal civil litigation today.
Rare is the case where a defendant does not file the "Twombly motion" decrying the woeful inadequacies of a plaintiff's pleading. And thanks to Justice Souter, the word "plausibility" has entered into our everyday vernacular as members of the bar.
While Twombly clearly had consequences on the law regarding pleading an adequate claim, the decision left unanswered several questions.
Click here to read the full article.