Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1653962
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (246)



 


 



Getting a Clue: Two Stage Complaint Pleading as a Solution to the Conley-Iqbal Dilemma


Ray Worthy Campbell


Peking University School of Transnational Law


Penn State Law Review, 2010
The Pennsylvania State University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 30-2010

Abstract:     
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal have brought to the forefront of legal scholarship the standards for assessing whether a complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure properly states a claim. This article examines whether too much is asked of the single Rule 8 complaint. At present a single document is asked to serve two very different roles – to provide notice of a dispute so discovery and motion practice can commence, but also to provide a basis for assessing the sufficiency and “plausibility” of the alleged facts underlying the claim, so that litigation can be defined and meritless cases dismissed.

These roles are in conflict. Looking to both game theory and real options analyses, this article concludes that an approach that gives greater weight to the notice function of a complaint will inevitably allow meritless cases to proceed into often expensive discovery, while an approach that favors the gating and assessment function will, due to information asymmetries, cause potentially worthwhile claims to be dismissed prematurely. The article looks to the various approaches that have been suggested in the wake of Twombly and Iqbal, and finds them wanting. Pre-filing discovery, for example, will in the limited jurisdiction courts of the federal system raise questions related to justiciability and jurisdiction. Approaches based on judicial management inevitably reduce ex ante predictability and could make obtaining justice more dependent on the judicial officer selected than on the rule of law.

The contribution of this article is to recognize that pleading need not occur in one stage. It proposes a compromise approach: optional two stage complaint pleading sandwiched around a limited, express discovery phase. By splitting pleading into two phases, it allows different pleading phases to serve different roles, thereby providing a means of case control now lacking. The first pleading, consistent with the federal rules, provides notice as to the nature of the case. The second phase, consistent with the role served by common law pleading and fact pleading, helps to narrow and define the litigation so the full discovery phase can proceed in a more controlled and economical fashion.

The proposal in this article will not lead to a perfect solution, but to one less imperfect solution than now exists. Plaintiffs can get just enough discovery to allow them to plead a valid complaint against the obvious parties, while blameless defendants can avoid a journey through the long and dreary valley of full discovery

Number of Pages in PDF File: 58

Keywords: pleading, Twombly, Iqbal, FRCP 8, discovery, jurisdiction, justiciability, game theory, real options theory, birufcated pleading, multiple complaints

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 19, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Campbell, Ray Worthy, Getting a Clue: Two Stage Complaint Pleading as a Solution to the Conley-Iqbal Dilemma. Penn State Law Review, 2010; The Pennsylvania State University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 30-2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1653962

Contact Information

Ray Worthy Campbell (Contact Author)
Peking University School of Transnational Law ( email )
Bldng B, Peking University Shenzhen Graduate Schl
University Town, Nanshan District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055
China
1-570-437-8758 (Phone)
1-707-371-7425 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://stl.pku.edu.cn/en/TeacherDetail.aspx?NodeCode=925006002001&Id=100000038037587
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 711
Downloads: 121
Download Rank: 135,404
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  246

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.390 seconds