Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

Supreme Court redefines pleading standard.

Article Excerpt
The Supreme Court recently held that plaintiffs alleging antitrust violations under the Sherman Act against several telecommunications companies failed to state a claim because they "have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." (Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007).)

Justice David Souter wrote for the 7-2 majority: "[W]e do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."

However, some observers say the decision does amount to a new, heightened pleading standard, and a few lower courts have already applied Twombly in granting defendants' motions to dismiss in cases unrelated to antitrust. (Hicks v. Assn. of Am. Med. Colleges, 2007 WL 1577841 (D.D.C. May 31, 2007); Goldstein v. Pataki, 2007 WL 1654009 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2007).)

Dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "the intentions of the drafters of three important sources of law--the Sherman Act, the Telecommunications Act of...