Twombly and Rule 12(i)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
hangnail
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 9:06 am

Twombly and Rule 12(i)

Postby hangnail » Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:48 pm

12(i) Hearing Before Trial. If a party so moves, any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(1)–(7)—whether made in a pleading or by motion—and a motion under Rule 12(c) must be heard and decided before trial unless the court orders a deferral until trial.

So...why was Twombly decided the way it was...that is, with such strong language?

acw1213
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 8:16 pm

Re: Twombly and Rule 12(i)

Postby acw1213 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:21 am

Make sure you understand what Twombly is actually doing. Twombly raises the pleading standard. Rule 12(i) merely says that 12(b) defenses will be litigated before trial. That should make perfect sense. When somebody makes a 12(b) motion, they are doing so because they want to end the lawsuit right then and there - they don't want to go to trial. Twombly forces the plaintiff to make a claim that is "plausible" not just "conceivable." Regardless of Twombly, a 12(b)(6) motion is going to be litigated before trial. Twombly just puts more pressure on a plaintiff to state a valid claim.

gaucholaw
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:29 pm

Re: Twombly and Rule 12(i)

Postby gaucholaw » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:14 am

The Short Answer as to why Twombly was decided so strongly was because Conley taken to its extreme was ridiculous ( as viewed by the SCOTUS).
Application:
8(a) - "short and plain statement" subtract "conclusory statements" (Iqbal) and make sure the claim is "plausible" which is policy for "is it worth putting the opposing party through the costs associated with discovery"...... for a fender bender, the old "short and plain" statement still applies..... for complex litigation like Twombly which would've involved massive litigation costs maybe not.... consult your professor on this one. For the cases in between, say sexual harassment or employment discrimination, there's lots of room for arguing.... in my view, this is a "getting to maybe" sort of answer. I'm a 1L, but fwiw I got 10/11 points for this exact question on my midterm.
Hope this helps!

User avatar
MCFC
Posts: 8482
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: Twombly and Rule 12(i)

Postby MCFC » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:10 am

gaucholaw wrote:The Short Answer as to why Twombly was decided so strongly was because Conley taken to its extreme was ridiculous ( as viewed by the SCOTUS).
Application:
8(a) - "short and plain statement" subtract "conclusory statements" (Iqbal) and make sure the claim is "plausible" which is policy for "is it worth putting the opposing party through the costs associated with discovery"...... for a fender bender, the old "short and plain" statement still applies..... for complex litigation like Twombly which would've involved massive litigation costs maybe not.... consult your professor on this one. For the cases in between, say sexual harassment or employment discrimination, there's lots of room for arguing.... in my view, this is a "getting to maybe" sort of answer. I'm a 1L, but fwiw I got 10/11 points for this exact question on my midterm.
Hope this helps!


I think this is pretty clearly the courts thinking, though I think you kind of have to be careful phrasing it that way. For instance, in Iqbal...

Respondent first says that our decision in Twombly should be limited to pleadings made in the context of an antitrust dispute. Iqbal Brief 37–38. This argument is not supported by Twombly and is incompatible with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Though Twombly determined the sufficiency of a complaint sounding in antitrust, the decision was based on our interpretation and application of Rule 8. 550 U. S., at 554. That Rule in turn governs the pleading standard “in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1. Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for “all civil actions,” ibid., and it applies to antitrust and discrimination suits alike.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests