Mon., Sept. 2

1
Mon., Sept. 2
2
drafting a complaint
3
- Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading(a) Claim
for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for
relief must contain(1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the courts
jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new
jurisdictional support(2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief and(3) a demand for the
relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.
4
Three things that can be wrong with a
complaint1) legal sufficiency of factual
allegations FRCP 12(b)(6)2) level of
specificity in factual allegations FRCP 8(a)3)
evidentiary support for factual allegations FRCP
11, 56
5
On Tuesday, August 26, 2013 at 231 p.m.,
Defendant Kathryn Ashley intentionally failed to
praise Plaintiff Michael Green for Plaintiffs
exemplary lecture on civil procedure, in
circumstances in which praise would have been
reasonable, thereby causing Plaintiff substantial
psychological distress.
6
Sierocinski v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Co. 3d
Cir. 1939
7
Martin Sierocinski, also known as Martin
Selensky, the plaintiff above named, brings this
action in trespass against E.I. DuPont DeNemours
Company upon a cause of action whereof the
following is a statement1. The plaintiff is a
resident of the City and County of
Philadelphia.2. The defendant, E.I. DuPont
DeNemours Company, is and was at the time of
the occurrences hereinafter described, a
corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware, and duly
authorized to transact business in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . . . .3. The
defendant is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and distributing, and does
manufacture and distribute, inter alia, blasting
caps for use by the public.. . .
8
6. The Ehret Magnesia Manufacturing Company
furnished to the plaintiff dynamite caps
manufactured by the defendant, which dynamite
caps were in the same condition as they were when
distributed by the said defendant. 7. On or
about September 24, 1936, the plaintiff was
engaged in crimping a dynamite cap, manufactured
and distributed by the defendant, when it
prematurely exploded causing injuries hereinafter
set forth. 8. In the crimping of the said
dynamite cap, the plaintiff acted in the usual
and customary manner, the process being a
necessary one in the using of the said dynamite
cap for the purpose for which it was manufactured
and distributed , and such action on his part
having been anticipated by defendant.
9
Conley v. Gibsoncomplaint 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
10
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly(U.S. 2007)
11
Paragraph 51In the absence of any meaningful
competition between the baby bells in one
anothers markets, and in light of the parallel
course of conduct that each engaged in to prevent
competition from locals within their respective
local telephone and/or high speed internet
services markets and the other facts and market
circumstances alleged above, Plaintiffs allege
upon information and belief that Defendants have
entered into a contract, combination or
conspiracy to prevent entry in their respective
local telephone and/or high speed internet
service markets and have agreed not to compete
with one another and otherwise allocated
customers and markets to one another.
12
Stevens But the plaintiffs allege in three
places in their complaint, 4, 51, 64, App. 11,
27, 30, that the baby bells did in fact agree
both to prevent competitors from entering into
their local markets and to forgo competition with
each other. And as the Court recognizes, at the
motion to dismiss stage, a judge assumes that
all the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact).
13
The majority circumvents this obvious obstacle to
dismissal by pretending that it does not exist.
The Court admits that in form a few stray
statements in the complaint speak directly of
agreement, but disregards those allegations by
saying that on fair reading these are merely
legal conclusions resting on the prior
allegations of parallel conduct. Ante, at 1970.
The Court's dichotomy between factual allegations
and legal conclusions is the stuff of a bygone
era, supra, at 1976 - 1977.
14
Assume that the complaint had alleged a handshake
agreement among the CEOs of the baby bells at a
particular meeting. No evidence is offered at
all. Is Twombly satisfied?