Hol' Dir diese Lernkarten, lerne & bestehe Prüfungen. Kostenlos! Auch auf iPhone/Android!

P filed a claim with no facts and mostly legal conclusions, did not indicate how claim related to the D.

H - Pleading was not sufficient to show a cause of action because it lacked facts.

U.S. filed claim against two oil refiners for dumping into Delaware River between such and such date.  Refiners motioned for more detail.

H - Only appropriate if complaint suffers from unintelligibility rather than want of detail; no fishing expeditions.  Denied.

Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement

Afr. Americans, 2 unions, one for whites one for blacks.  Unions tried to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

H - Stands for relaxed pleading.  ". . . 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 to support his claim . . ."

1600 Ps sued 100 Ds alleging injuries due to uranium mining.  Ct asked for more specificity - i.e., what injuries?  what materials caused?  which mines?  Ps submitted single statement from an expert listing general maladies and that each P had exposure, ct dismissed.

H - P must have some info re:nature of injuries, cause, and basis for believing Ds were cause.

Drunk driver/dram shop act claim, or other guy was negligent claim.  Mutually exclusive claims.

H - It is ok to plead in the alternative, esp. when the info about which is correct is not within your advance info.  This allows single action to bring about justice.  B/c star witness (driver) was dead, this was the only way.

Polish immigrant woman sued Hilton for fraud.  Obv. she had no idea, but her son-in-law Irving Brilliant, Harvard Law grad, was the source of her info, and that was enough.

H - not a "sham pleading" because the record showed the charges were based on reasonable belief and careful investigation.

The psychologist wanted his tapes back from his old employer.  D filed Rule11(c)(2) sanctions and 28 USCA 1927 sanctions b/c P's attny did not reasonably investigate facts or law.

H - Rule 11 sanctions ok, 1927 not ok b/c no bad faith.  Also, sanctions too severe, revisit.

Notes:

28 U.S.C.A. sec 1927 also allows sanctions for being vexatious, i.e. bad faith.

Rule 11 was relaxed in an amendment, b/c lawyers became afraid of dropping weak claims as cases went on lest they be sanctioned.

Can get sanctioned for no investigation even if claim ends up appropriate - discourages lazy lawyering.

Remember Safe Harbor.

Woman injured by drugs as a girl.  She'd had 3 docs, one was now dead.  Lawyers sued the pharma companies used by the 2 living docs, and also Upjohn, assuming because it had a big market share that it was likely that the third doc used Upjohn (statute of limitations was running).  Sanctioned.

H - no likelihood add'l med records would be found, shouldn't have included Upjohn.

Sherman says - should've hired a P.I. to show they did all they could to find those records.

P said he was fired due to national origin.  After D's witnesses contradicted that notion, trial ct found Rule 11 violation.

H - appeals ct said attny not in violation, information in particular control of D, who wasn't going to share with P pre-trial.

Shot in the face, not on D's property but D knew of the danger.  Attny should have pleaded a new reading of the invitee protection rule saying this was the D's premises b/c D used it, but did not.  Should have amended complaint, but instead chose to appeal.  Used a legal conclusion in the complaint.

H - 12(b)(6) dismissal was proper

Investors brought a securities fraud class action against a corp. and its CEO, who published info that their flagship product was still selling strong when not, did channel stuffing, other bad acts.  Ct dismissed - failed to establish CEO's scienter (had to say w/particularity some facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter.)  Shareholders amended to add 27 statements of others to CEO's state of mind, ct dismissed again.  Appeal granted, reasonable person standard.  Certiorari granted.

H - Ginsburg: reasonable person not appropriate, b/c fails to take into account competing inferences.  Must plead facts to show scienter is at least as likely as not.
Scalia's concurrence is that inference of scienter should be more plausible than the inference of innocence.
Stevens's dissent says we don't need to look at competing inference, just is this probable?

Notes:

In alleging fraud or mistake, must be specific about circumstances constituting fraud or mistake, but can infer scienter.  Must be a "strong inference."  This is to prevent allegations of fraud by hindsight - i.e., every time your stock drops.

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 to put a higher standard on the specificity required in the pleadings under the SEC Act, to protect companies from the costs of discovery etc, when they are Ds.

Sw. claimed he lost his job due to age and race.  Dismissed b/c he didn't follow evidentiary standard of McDonnell Douglas.  Ct says didn't adequately allege circumstances that support inference of discrimination.

H - Reversed - emp. discrimination cases only need short and plain statement showing P is entitled to relief.  McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading standard.  Rule 9(b) does not apply to empment discr. cases.

McDonnell Douglas:
1. protected group
2. qualification for job
3. adverse empment action
4. circumstances to support inference of discr.

Don't want to lose notice pleading!

Co. marketed Dalkon Shield for contraception, which was dangerous.  Ps asserted that the Ds knew it was dangerous and didn't withdraw it, thus exposing itself to tort claims and their investment to decline.  Plaintiffs did not plead specifically any facts that gave rise to this assertion of Ds knowledge, and their claim was dismissed.

Baby Bells, allegedly agreed not to let competitors use their networks and not to compete w/one another, CEO said competing w/other Baby Bells might make money, but wouldn't be right.  Customers alleged conspiracy in restraint of commerce due to parallel activity and CEO's comment.  Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

H - Souter - Proper standard for pleading antitrust is "plausibility to infer an agreement."  "Does not impose probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement."   Parallel legal activity is not enough to cross the line from conceivable to plausible.

Notes:
Wants to protect companies from expensive discovery. 

This is a heightened pleading standard, though they say otherwise.

Dissent says it too quickly dispenses with Conley.

Since Twombly, some people think it is the apocalyptic end of notice pleading, others don't find it so different.

Cited in Twombly dissent - another conspiracy for restraint of trade case.  Japanese manufacturers fixed high prices for tvs in Japan, and low ones in America.  After years of discovery, Ds got summary judgment.

H - Raising a mere "metaphysical doubt" as to the legality of the Ds conduct is not sufficient.  However, note that this got past pleading and was decided on SJ.  Twombly dissent agreed that facts pleaded would not be sufficient to survive SJ, but that the Ds should have at least had to answer.

P sued county and 2 municipal corporations saying K'stal rights were violated.  Lower ct dismissed under heightened pleading standard, saying he hadn't plead that these rights were violated due to official policy, custom, or practice.

H - no heightened pleading standard applies here.

Securities fraud action, co. inflated value of stock due to misrepresentations.  Stock lost value after co. announced earnings were lower than expected.  Shareholders claim dismissed.

H - They didn't show cause - that the misrepresentations caused their loss in value.  Not a heightened pleading requirement, but a simple 8(a)(2) deficiency - no relief can be granted if no cause.

Helps to clarify plausibility rules.  Nobody knew whether to only apply Twombly to anti trust cases or others?  Iqbal was an Arab Muslim arrested and detained cruelly after 9/11.  Then released for no evidence.  Sued Ashcroft, saying he was treated solely due to his race and religion, but no direct evidence of this.

H - Apply plausibility across the board, not just antitrust.  It was not plausible that Iqbal was held due solely to his race and religion, b/c it was equally likely that the reasons for detention were not discriminatory.  STRONG DISSENT, who said all the govt knew about him was his race and religion, so how could they have held him for any other reason?

Padilla imprisoned, Yoo was a lawyer who said harsh interrogation techniques were legal.  Not dismissed, due to Padilla showing Yoo had purposefully misconstrued the Geneva Convention (Yoo had said such things publicly.)  So, ergo, plausible, and pleading survived.