Law School Discussion

what exactly is the difference between conley and twombly pleading standards?


  • ****
  • 967
    • View Profile
ok so i know the holdings by heart: "beyond reasonable doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts" vs. "sufficient factual allegations to give plausibility to the underlying claim"... but what exactly does this mean?  can someone give me some examples to differentiate the two pleading standards here? thanks.


  • ****
  • 159
    • View Profile
here's my take:

twombly essentially gutted the following language of conley: "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 entitled him to relief.”  (i don't have my textbook w/ me, but the majority did this by holding that the mere allegation of parallel conduct is not enough.... etc.) so, arguably it turned rule 8's notice pleading requirements into a fact pleading requirement.(similar to rule 9 for negligence)... so twombly adds an additional “plausibility” requirement of fact pleading. it's unclear whether this new pleading standard applies to all cases, or only expensive/anti-trust cases. in theory, this "new standard" will lead to more successful 12 (b)6 dismissals.

i agree with (i think it was) Justice Steven's dissent. just my thoughts.

Papa Bear

  • ****
  • 398
  • Do these shades make me look fat?
    • View Profile
Nobody really knows what it "means" in the abstract, but in practice it means judges have a bit more discretion to toss claims they think are a stretch.


  • ****
  • 1519
  • Go Gators.
    • View Profile
This is the possible readings of Twombly given to us by our Prof:

1. Plausibility pleading for all cases - Except pro se.
2. Plausibility pleading for all cases with a risk of exorbitant discovery.
3. Plausibility pleading only for antitrust cases.

My prof hinted that #2 was the way its being used in practice.