Pleading Standards after Bell Atlantic v. Twombly

Virginia Law Review in Brief, Vol. 93, p. 135, 2007

9 Pages Posted: 12 Jul 2007 Last revised: 12 Nov 2012

Scott Dodson

University of California Hastings College of the Law

Date Written: April 5, 2010

Abstract

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court repudiated the familiar language from Conley v. Gibson, that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitled him to relief. This essay critiques Bell Atlantic and discusses some of its implications for pleading claims in the future.

Keywords: pleading, motion to dismiss, Rule 8, Rule 12, 12(b)(6), Bell Atlantic, Twombly, Gibson, Conley, no set of facts

Suggested Citation

Dodson, Scott, Pleading Standards after Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (April 5, 2010). Virginia Law Review in Brief, Vol. 93, p. 135, 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=995592

Scott Dodson (Contact Author)

University of California Hastings College of the Law ( email )

200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States
415-581-8959 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://https://www.uchastings.edu/faculty-administration/faculty/dodson/index.html

Paper statistics

Downloads
522
Rank
41,876
Abstract Views
3,256