“he standard ‘simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence’ of the required element.” Rivell v. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. The allegations must include “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations … a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Thus, motions to dismiss should not be granted unless the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of its claim entitling it to relief. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint need only be “a short and plain statement of the claim,” and as long as the pleadings “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” notice pleading has been satisfied. The Standard for Motions to Dismiss in Federal Courtįederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), applicable to civil litigation in Federal Courts, empowers the court to grant motions to dismiss when a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |