You are on page 1of 1

Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly (11-2) F: P brought an antitrust lawsuit alleging price-fixing.

The claim was dismissed under rule 12(6)(b) for failure to dismiss a claim since the pleading alleged only behavior consistent with price fixing, but no facts alleging an agreement. I: What is required for a pleading to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim? H/R: On May 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly1 and gutted the venerable language from Conley v. Gibson that every civil procedure professor and student can recite almost by heart: that “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.” The Court then explained that the need for additional fact pleading is particularly necessary in antitrust litigation because antitrust discovery—especially antitrust class action discovery—can be potentially massive and expensive. Because “the threat of discovery expense will push cost-conscious defendants to settle even anemic cases,” the requirement of fact pleading is necessary to weed out, at the pleading stage, those cases “with no reasonably founded hope that the [discovery] process will reveal relevant evidence to support a [Section] 1 claim.”8 Twombly requires a pleading with "enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face."