Comparative Convergences in Pleading Standards
University of California Hastings College of the Law
March 2, 2009
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 158, No. 441, 2010
Comparative civil procedure has had little influence in American jurisprudence and commentary, in part because of American procedure's deep and widespread exceptionalism. But this may be changing, at least in certain areas. The American notice pleading standard, for example, which has long been considered exceptional, shows signs of trending toward the fact pleading models of foreign countries. Congressional experimentation with heightened pleading in statutes such as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements in Iqbal v. Ashcroft and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly suggest that American pleading jurisprudence is moving away from its traditionally exceptionalist corner and towards a regime focused on facts that is more akin to the global norm. If so, then this trend may allow for more meaningful transnational dialogue between the U.S. and foreign systems, more valuable comparative analyses in the U.S., and the potential to harmonize civil procedure across national boundaries.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 32
Keywords: notice pleading, pleading standards, twombly, bell atlantic, fact pleading, rule 8, comparative civil procedureAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 30, 2009 ; Last revised: November 12, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.219 seconds