In our March article, we addressed whether the Twombly tide might be receding in light of the decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Starr v. Sony BMG Musical Entertainment . There, the court reversed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal invoking Twombly , and held that the allegations were not conclusory and plausibly suggested parallel conduct. The 2nd Circuit found that “at the more limited motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff need only allege enough factual material (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made.” A previous article in July 2008 addressed decisions in the 3rd Circuit holding that Twombly set neither a heightened nor plausibility standard, but a mere reiteration of what Rule 8 already required.
In May of last year, the Supreme Court attempted to further answer the questions surrounding the legal standard governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal . Although the Supreme Court provided a few answers in Iqbal and the 3rd Circuit has broached some of the issues raised by both of the Supreme Court decisions, questions still remain.
This content has been archived.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]
