PKSebben wrote:Matthies wrote:PKSebben wrote:BaronDetroit wrote:C'mon...I just gave a fair, thoughtful and balanced response with a FRCP Rule that was on point and cited 2 cases. Yet, the other side here still wants to make this (in my view) ridiculous claim that numbers on a transcript or a name of a school equates to a plausible entitlement to relief in terms of employment arising out of a legal education.
Please explain how federal pleading standards are applicable to your argument. I really think you are flame, but you post from an AOL IP address, and your previous posts are about which TTT you should attend. I just can't figure you out, mang.
I think, and I'm surely no civil procedure expert, but the argument me might be trying to make is that after Iqbal (successor to Bell Atlantic aka twombly) is no longer limited to anti-trust, but any competition claim.
Here he seems to be arguing that if someone was to claim "entilment" to a legal job based on grades/school it would have to be proven as fact that an ABA JD degree entitles one to something more because of school/grades than otherwise. Which can't be proven as fact for a Rule 8 pleading, and would, I guess, he is trying to assert would be a legal allegation and therefore not well pleaded?
That's about the only argument, competion/fact/legal concussion i could draw from citing the cases and Rule 8 as to the "Yet, the other side here still wants to make this (in my view) ridiculous claim that numbers on a transcript or a name of a school equates to a plausible entitlement to relief in terms of employment arising out of a legal education."
Its not the argument i would make, but again civ pro ain't my thing. Lets talk about something everyone enjoys like NEPA.
Iqbal applies Twombly to all federal causes of action. The core holding of both cases is that Plaintiff must proffer "enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement." I'm assuming what this retard means is "if this were a legal argument, you haven't even pleaded the requisite specific facts to survive a MTD under the Twombly standard." He's getting there by saying there are no promises (and therefore no "entitlement") to anything when one holds a JD from any school.
The whole thing is totally retarded. Especially when the major beef in this thread is that the law schools may be presenting misleading employment statistics and inducing students to drop 150k based on such information. And to go along with the stupid message board argument as legal argument shtick, there is enough evidence in this thread (counting non-law jobs in these stats, not revealing the percent responded, providing the median salary instead of the mean) to at least get to discovery.
Put the barbri book down, go outside.