I wondering if anybody here has ." Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)file a motion to dismiss for failure to state cause based on the recent Supreme Court rulings - Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and "Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) that established a higher standard of plausibility for pleadings to survive a motion to dismiss.

A plaintiff must provide the grounds of his entitlement, but Rule 8 generally does not require a detailed factual allegations." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley,355 U.S. at 47). It does, however, "demand[ ] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pleadings that contain nothing more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" do not meet Rule 8 standards nor do pleadings suffice that are based merely upon "labels or conclusions" or "naked assertions" without supporting factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557.

The Supreme Court has identified "two working principles" for the district court to use in applying the facial plausibility standard. 1. While the court must still assume the truth of well pleaded factual allegations, it does not have to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. 2.Only a complaint that sustains a plausible claim for relieve survives a motion to dismiss.

Has anybody here successfully argued those standards to get a case dismissed?
* Last updated by: DAVID3 on 10/21/2015 @ 6:46 PM *

Ok, at least in Florida, that tougher pleading standard mentioned above is a federal standard and only applies in federal cases, not in civil cases tried before a circuit courts/county courts.

Greetings! Fwiw, i've been using (with some degree of satsfaction) http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en to search for caselaw. Though you may not care much for that particular side of "Dr. Google", she does have some advantages (i.e. selecting states, courts & districts). The case you're looking for, Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), as readily viewable ... Good luck :)

Thanks, Bruno1. I also use Google Scholar for my initial case law search so I found those cases and thought their implications were profound, in terms of dismissing frivolous pleadings before going through expensive discovery. I believe that is true but unfortunately only for cases filed in Federal courts, not for cases like mine filed in civil court.

Thanks

I may have missed something? What cause of action are you filing in civil court instead of federal court

@david3 ... What, exactly, are you trying to do? M2S, M2D, or ...? Please clarify :)

I am a defendant in a Florida probate dispute. The case has already been filed in Civil/Probate Court.

Initially I asked about the new standard because I am filing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Cause and I was going to incorporate arguments based on this new pleading standard into my Motion.

After further investigation, I found this new standard only changes the Federal Rules, not the Florida state rules.

Thanks for clarifying ... Though never having dealt with probate issues (mine are related federal income tax & -lien), my strategy for responding would depend on whether i'm being sued in a fiduciary capacity (aka "exectrix" er such) or in my individual capacity (ie heir). Afaict, "Lack of Cause" == "failure to state a claim", yes? If true, then the controlling law would lay out the required, ultimate facts.

I know you're under time pressure, but afaik, your [collateral] attack on the complaint's factual foundation (or lack thereof) should suffice.

If you are a pro se the pleading standards are suppose to be much lower. I'm currently in the ninth circuit making the argument that the standards in iqbal and Twombly are such that it violates my constitutional right to redress the government for grievances. A standard so high that even regular attorneys have a problem to meet, and courts conviniently blow pro se litigants out the water all the time using the excuse of not meeting the standards in iq al and Twombly. I say if the law profession wants to make there life a living he'll so be it.they don't have a right to redress the government for grievances. We do. Pro se of course.

Hi ... It would help if you would give us a brief summary of your case. As regards the "pro se" leeway you're speaking of, rest assured that hudges don't see it that way. Yes, they may give lipservice to holding a pro-se litigant to a so-called "lower" standard. However, ime, that [alleged] lowered standard only applies to the FORMALITY of pleadings, but NOT the factual content. It is THAT factual context that Iqbal and Twobmly refer to, those "ultimate" facts that one must set forth to have a pleading -- any pleading -- pass muster.

PS: are you enrolled in ECF, and have you researched your judge's preferences (i.e. on google scholar) re. Iq&T?