Brief of Professors of Civil Procedure and Federal Practice as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents in Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Loyola Law School Los Angeles
November, 10 2008
Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2008-35
The decision of the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly caused confusion among lower courts, the practicing bar and the academy regarding the current status of pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The Court appears poised to respond to that confusion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a case that raises the question of heightened pleading standards in the specific context of a high government official's assertion of a qualified immunity defense. This amicus brief offers the Court an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to Rule 8(a)(2)'s short and plain statement standard and to the rulemaking process established under the Rules Enabling Act, without at the same time repudiating its opinion in Bell Atlantic. The brief also discusses the relationship between pleading standards and the qualified immunity defense, and attempts to demonstrate that assertion of that defense should not alter the long-established short and plain standards of Rule 8(a)(2).
Number of Pages in PDF File: 41working papers series
Date posted: November 11, 2008
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.437 seconds