Black-letter propositions
- 01
A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim, and detailed factual allegations are not required, but it must contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
- 02
A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded facts allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
- 03
Allegations of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy do not state an agreement in violation of the antitrust laws, because the conduct is as consistent with independent business decisions as with an agreement.
- 04
A court may disregard threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusions, because they are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and then assume the veracity of well-pleaded facts and decide whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
- 05
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific and requires the court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.
- 06
Summary judgment must be entered, after adequate time for discovery and on motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which it bears the burden of proof at trial.
- 07
The moving party need not support its motion with affidavits or other materials negating the opponent's claim, and it may point to the absence of evidence on an element on which the opponent bears the burden.
- 08
A dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, and the judge's function at summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.
- 09
The evidentiary standard the jury would apply at trial, such as clear and convincing evidence of actual malice in a libel case, guides the court's summary judgment analysis.
- 10
When the record, such as a videotape, blatantly contradicts the plaintiff's version of events so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts in ruling on summary judgment.
Use this attack sequence under time
Frame the issue
On a motion to dismiss, strip out conclusions and labels, then ask whether the remaining facts plausibly show liability.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Ask whether the alleged facts are just as consistent with lawful conduct.
Resolve the next checkpoint
On summary judgment, identify who bears the burden of proof at trial on the disputed element.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Ask whether a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant on the record evidence.
Finish the conclusion
Look for undisputed objective evidence that contradicts a party's account.
Common wrong turns
- Plausibility does not require detailed facts, but labels and conclusions do not count.
- A court deciding a summary judgment motion does not weigh credibility or the evidence.
- The moving party with no burden at trial can win by showing the absence of evidence on an essential element.
- A party's own version of events does not create a genuine dispute if a videotape blatantly contradicts it.
Worked example
Consumers allege that several telephone companies engaged in parallel conduct and say generally that the companies must have agreed not to compete. They allege no facts about any meeting or communication.
Parallel conduct plus a bare assertion of agreement does not state a plausible claim, because the conduct is just as consistent with independent decisions, so the complaint fails under Rule 12(b)(6).
Practice this topic
Pleading standards
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly held that stating a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act requires a complaint with enough factual matter, taken as true, to suggest that an agreement was made, and that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal explained that Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations but calls for sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, that facial plausibility exists when the facts allow the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable, that threadbare recitals of the elements supported by mere conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and that the inquiry is context-specific and draws on the court's experience and common sense.
Summary judgment standards
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett held that the plain language of Rule 56 mandates summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial, and that the moving party need not support its motion with affidavits negating the opponent's claim.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby held that summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is genuine, meaning that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, that the judge's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth but to decide whether there is a genuine issue for trial, and that the court must apply the clear and convincing standard when deciding whether there is a genuine issue of actual malice in a libel case.
Anderson also explained that as to materiality the substantive law identifies which facts are material and that only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law preclude summary judgment.
Objective evidence and the nonmovant's version
Scott v. Harris held that where the record, including a videotape, blatantly contradicts the plaintiff's version of events so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a summary judgment motion.
Frequently asked questions
What is the controlling rule for plausible pleading and summary judgment: the twombly, iqbal, celotex, and anderson standards?+
Explain the plausibility standard and apply it to the pleaded facts, or state the summary judgment standard, allocate the burden, and ask whether a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant.
What must a complaint allege to survive a motion to dismiss?+
Enough facts, taken as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Do allegations of parallel conduct show an antitrust conspiracy?+
Not by themselves, because the conduct is consistent with independent action, under Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Does a court accept legal conclusions in a complaint as true?+
No, threadbare recitals supported by conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth, under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
What makes a factual dispute genuine on summary judgment?+
A reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant, under Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986).
Must the moving party disprove the opponent's claim with affidavits?+
No, it may point to the absence of evidence on an element the opponent must prove, under Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).