Do the names Twombly1 and Iqbal2 mean anything to you? If so, have they triggered bells, buzzers and alarms? They should! Twombly and Iqbal are two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that restate the standard for sufficient pleadings in federal courts especially as necessary to withstand motions to dismiss for failure to state sufficient allegations on a cause of action. In other words, the sufficiency of a complaint is to be evaluated in light of the two “working principles” articulated in Twombly and Iqbal.
First, the “tenet” that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.3 Second, only a complaint that “states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Determining the latter “plausibility factor” is a task because there must be sufficiently “well-pleaded facts” that “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” The facts pled must “show” that the pleader “is entitled to relief.”4
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
