The standard for pleadings in federal courts have taken an interesting turn since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in a  pair of cases called Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Traditionally, pleadings in federal courts have been subject to what has commonly been referred to as “notice” pleading. This simply meant that all a plaintiff had to do in federal court was assert a claim that would fairly apprise a defendant of the nature of the claim being brought against him. This standard changed when the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in Twombly and Iqbal. Under this new standard, a plaintiff must adhere to a different level of pleadings.

The Supreme Court has extended the pleading requirement to include an element of plausibility. This plausibility requirement mandates that allegations made in a pleading must be more than a recital of the elements of a cause of action. One federal appellate court has ruled on what constitutes plausibility in pleadings. “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. This is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Rhodes v. Prince, 360 F. App’x 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2010).

This reasoning is important for several reasons. First, it is a significant tool for defense counsel. While it obviously is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card, it does provide defense counsel with leverage when responding to plaintiff’s allegations in federal court. Second, it forces plaintiffs to evaluate the causes of action they decide to bring in federal court. This should have the effect of streamlining litigation. It will force both sides to deal more effectively and efficiently with the true claims which ought to be addressed. This in turn leads to the curtailment of frivolous claims and catch-all allegations which result in unnecessary litigation costs, in both time and money, on the courts and attorneys.

This column is published for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to create an attorney client relationship. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.