U.S. Supreme Court Liberalizes the Legal Standard Required to Prevail on a Motion to Dismiss in Federal Court

March 14, 2008

In a precedent-setting decision, the United States Supreme Court significantly liberalized the long-standing legal standard for granting a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For 50 years, the "general rule" stated in Conley v. Gibson governed motions to dismiss, namely, "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 entitle him to relief." The Conley rule made it difficult for defendants in most cases to prevail on motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court jettisoned the rule when it decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). The specific question under consideration in Twombly concerned an interpretation of the Sherman Act, but the Court's ruling reverberates far beyond antitrust law.

According to the Supreme Court, the factual allegations in a complaint challenged by a motion to dismiss "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." In other words, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."

How significant a change in procedural law this new standard represents depends in large part on how literally a court previously applied the rule of Conley. In the states within the Fifth Circuit (Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), the change represented by Twombly is significant: "We have often stated that a claim should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts or any possible theory he may prove consistent with the allegations in the complaint. This standard derived from Conley v. Gibson. . . . But recently in Twombly, the Supreme Court made clear that the Conley rule is not ‘the minimum standard of adequate pleading to govern a complaint's survival.'" In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 n. 10 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).

One thing is certain: the Twombly decision will embolden defendants, to bring more motions to dismiss lawsuits at the outset.

For more information, please contact Mary Ellen Roy.