U.S. Supreme Court,
Civil Litigation
May 21, 2009
Pleading Insanity
After Monday's ruling in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the standard for addressing the adequacy of a complaint got a lot more complicated, writes Michael Waterstone.
Michael Waterstone
Fritz B. Burns Dean
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Email: michael.waterstone@lls.edu
Pleading is an important part of my civil procedure class. It used to be that after suffering through the vagaries of personal jurisdiction and the dreaded Erie doctrine, students were relieved to get to pleading. But after Monday's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the standard for addressing the adequacy of a complaint got a lot more complicated. More importantly, Iqbal (like Bell Atlantic v. Twombly before it), reached the wrong result and will dramatically limit plaintiffs' access to co...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In