Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
stinger35
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:37 pm

Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby stinger35 » Sun May 02, 2010 12:30 am

Can anyone give me some assistance on what standard a party has to satisfy in their pleadings to survive a 12b6 motion after Twombly and Iqbal. All my hornbooks are too old and my casebook is terrible. Thanks - hope finals are treating everyone better than me

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby MrKappus » Sun May 02, 2010 12:34 am

It's about pleading facts that make the claim "plausible on its face," not merely possible. So you cannot just show a set of circumstances in which correlation could be responsible for a set of facts (e.g., telecom prices all being the same). You have to plead facts that show it's facially plausible that those prices are the same b/c of an unlawful action.

eth3n
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby eth3n » Sun May 02, 2010 1:57 am

WHY TWOMBLY WHY?

User avatar
samiseaborn
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby samiseaborn » Sun May 02, 2010 8:35 am

Iqbal= conclusory statements are not good enough. I.E. he beat me, and I'm a minority, therefore there must be a policy of discrimination = not good enough. <...insert Arizona joke here>

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby prezidentv8 » Sun May 02, 2010 8:44 am

samiseaborn wrote:Iqbal= conclusory statements are not good enough. I.E. he beat me, and I'm a minority, therefore there must be a policy of discrimination = not good enough. <...insert Arizona joke here>


Nice.

dreman510
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby dreman510 » Sun May 02, 2010 8:52 am


tikitavi
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:55 pm

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby tikitavi » Sun May 02, 2010 10:37 am

And if appropriate you can make some arguments using the policies behind Twombly, i.e., when it is going to be an 'expensive' case then policy favors requiring greater specificity in pleading. And even moreso when much of the discovery is going to be 'one way', i.e., the party will be able to obtain lots of discoverable info from the opponent, but the opponent will not be able to discover nearly as much from the party. It's true that Iqbal made it seem like these concerns aren't as important, but there is always going to be a gray area of whether the pleading is specific enough, so the opponent can use policy arguments to say sway the judge a little in his direction.

novaman3
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby novaman3 » Sun May 02, 2010 8:15 pm

It's still unknown what the standard is. Judges are supposed to use their "common sense" and "judicial experience" in determining when a claim is "plausible."

--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby prezidentv8 » Sun May 02, 2010 8:16 pm

novaman3 wrote:It's still unknown what the standard is. Judges are supposed to use their "common sense" and "judicial experience" in determining when a claim is "plausible."

--LinkRemoved--


Ah! The traditional "make-it-up-as-you-go-and-hope-for-the-best test!"

I see now!

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby Danteshek » Sun May 02, 2010 8:21 pm

. Answered

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Twombly, Iqbal, 12(b)(6)

Postby prezidentv8 » Sun May 02, 2010 8:28 pm

Nevermind.


Twombly would prolly beat Iqbal in a fight.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests