467:. First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions... Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Our decision in
31:
417:
complaint had not provided enough facts for the court to find it plausible that the companies had engaged in a conspiracy; instead, the complaint provided factual bases for parallel conduct, not enough under the court's new interpretation of the
Sherman Act, and stated only that an agreement had taken place, with no details to support that allegation. The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was therefore proper.
365:) had engaged in anti-competitive behavior in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the companies had acted to disadvantage smaller telephone companies and charge consumers more by, for example, refraining from entering markets where another large company was dominant (thereby preventing a price war), even though the
433:, a complaint needed to state only a "conceivable" set of facts to support its legal claims. In other words, a court could not dismiss claims unless it appeared, beyond a reasonable doubt, that plaintiffs would be able to prove no set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief. In
337:
to include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible or conceivable, that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims. The latter change in the law has been met with a great deal of controversy in legal circles, as evidenced by the dissenting opinion from
519:
had unanimously established that the heightened pleading standard was fundamentally at odds with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court opined that the only way to change the standard would be to amend the Rules. The Court had further cemented this idea with another unanimous ruling in
585:
A court shall not dismiss a complaint under subdivision (b)(6), (c) or (e) of Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. A court shall not dismiss a
448:
test however remained vague, and the legal establishment was stumped as how to interpret the "plausibility" standard, even though it was not supposed to be a heightened pleading standard, as the Court said in footnote 14. The general applicability of this heightened standard of pleading outside of
54:
Bell
Atlantic Corporation, BellSouth Corporation, Qwest Communications International Inc., SBC Communications Inc., and Verizon Communications Inc. (successor-in-interest to Bell Atlantic Corporation) v. William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly
416:
The court then upheld the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, holding that the mere allegations contained in the complaint that the competitors had agreed not to compete were insufficient to state a claim of conspiracy under the
Sherman Act. The court found that Twombly's
408:
As an initial matter, the
Supreme Court clarified the requirements of proving a claim of anti-competitive behavior under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act prohibits entering into a "contract, combination, or conspiracy" to restrain trade. The court held that while parallel conduct
586:
complaint under one of those subdivisions on the basis of a determination by the judge that the factual contents of the complaint do not show the plaintiff's claim to be plausible or are insufficient to warrant a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
562:
which takes effect after the date of enactment of this Act, a
Federal court shall not dismiss a complaint under rule 12(b)(6) or (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in
400:
The
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit, which had reversed the decision of the district court (Lynch D.J.) dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
923:
93:
929, 75 U.S.L.W. 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases ¶ 75,709, 68 Fed.R.Serv.3d 661, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5550, 2007 Daily
Journal D.A.R. 7097, 41 Communications Reg. (P&F) 567, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267
385:
492:
826:
634:
599:
151:
83:
903:
721:
488:
424:
8(a)(2) and the standards for dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by creating a new, stricter standard of a pleading's required specificity.
511:
168:
Parallel conduct alone, absent some evidence of agreement to engage in anti-competitive behavior, is not sufficient to prove a violation of Section 1 of the
898:
369:
had made it relatively inexpensive to do so. The lawsuit alleged a conspiracy between the Baby Bells to not compete. As examples, the lawsuit noted that
413:" from which an agreement to engage in anti-competitive behavior may be inferred, parallel conduct alone is insufficient to prove a Sherman Act claim.
908:
604:
913:
172:. A complaint must allege facts with sufficient specificity to state a claim for relief that is plausible, not merely conceivable, on its face.
697:
325:, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the
310:
35:
665:
559:
402:
421:
389:
278:
388:, as failing to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for a violation of the Sherman Act. The decision was reversed by the
366:
780:
437:, the court adopted a stricter "plausibility" standard that required "enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that
864:
522:
578:
918:
668:
574:
314:
880:
740:
692:. Martha Minow, Mark S. Brodin, Thomas O. Main, Alexandra D. Lahav (6th ed.). New York. pp. 257–275.
409:(actions by competing companies that might be seen as implying some agreement to work together) is "admissible
330:
121:
410:
762:
374:
136:
830:
638:
326:
274:
169:
155:
75:
227:
102:
837:
715:
872:
703:
693:
610:
451:
373:
did not compete in California despite having business in all the surrounding states, and that
339:
195:
565:
429:
294:
804:
555:
438:
381:
318:
219:
207:
653:
420:
The decision changed the existing interpretation of the notice pleading requirements of
377:
did no business in Connecticut despite having a monopoly in all the surrounding states.
846:
641:
231:
203:
64:
892:
547:
496:
351:
661:
322:
239:
215:
187:
78:
350:
William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus brought a class-action lawsuit alleging that
455:, when the court also provided guidance as to how lower courts should apply the
359:
118:
789:
707:
355:
145:
334:
90:
687:
855:
744:
512:
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit
485:
125:
550:
introduced the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009, which provided:
766:
477:
362:
140:
370:
256:
Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
133:
30:
505:
remains controversial as of 2020. Not only did it overturn
805:"Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009 (2009 - S. 1504)"
484:
The case was argued successfully by Michael K. Kellogg of
573:
Shortly thereafter, a similar bill was introduced in the
491:
and Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General of the
392:, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2006.
386:
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
924:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
689:
Civil procedure : doctrine, practice, and context
493:
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division
427:
Previously, under the standard the court set forth in
600:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 550
333:
requirement for federal civil cases by requiring for
538:
On July 22, 2009, after the Supreme Court broadened
590:Neither bill ever made it to the floor for a vote.
268:
260:
252:
247:
176:
162:
113:
108:
98:
70:
60:
49:
42:
23:
287:This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
463:Two working principles underlie our decision in
489:Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel
475:The two cases are often jointly referred to as
461:
554:Except as otherwise expressly provided by an
309:, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the
8:
441:will reveal evidence of illegal agreement."
264:Stevens, joined by Ginsburg (except Part IV)
720:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
20:
605:List of United States Supreme Court cases
904:United States motion to dismiss case law
865:Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
623:
380:Their complaint was dismissed by Judge
713:
644: (2007) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
471:illustrates the two-pronged approach.
18:2007 United States Supreme Court case
7:
681:
679:
677:
656:Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly
495:, on behalf of the United States as
779:Harrow, Jason (November 26, 2006).
449:antitrust cases was established in
311:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
899:United States Supreme Court cases
833:544 (2007) is available from:
579:Open Access to Courts Act of 2009
909:United States antitrust case law
560:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
403:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
29:
422:Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
390:Second Circuit Court of Appeals
279:Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
914:2007 in United States case law
823:Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
783:Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
758:Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp.
736:Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp.
631:Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
526:, 534 U.S. 506 (2002), making
457:Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
367:Telecommunications Act of 1996
306:Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
1:
523:Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A.
358:(successor companies to the
741:313 F. Supp. 2d 174
669:Chicago-Kent College of Law
575:US House of Representatives
942:
856:Oyez (oral argument audio)
558:or by an amendment to the
530:all the more surprising.
509:, but it also overturned
329:. It also heightened the
292:
285:
273:
181:
167:
117:Complaint dismissed, 313
28:
883:Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
874:Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
686:Subrin, Stephen (2020).
43:Argued November 27, 2006
24:Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
569:, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).4
515:, 507 U.S. 163 (1992).
411:circumstantial evidence
277:, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;
588:
571:
473:
321:. Authored by Justice
583:
577:. It was called the "
552:
542:with its decision in
499:for the petitioners.
89:127 S. Ct. 1955, 167
534:Legislative reaction
130:vacated and remanded
45:Decided May 21, 2007
781:"Argument Preview:
763:425 F.3d 99
228:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
919:Verizon litigation
192:Associate Justices
699:978-1-5438-2206-9
611:Ashcroft v. Iqbal
452:Ashcroft v. Iqbal
340:John Paul Stevens
302:
301:
281:8(a)(2), 12(b)(6)
931:
869:
863:
860:
854:
851:
845:
842:
836:
809:
808:
801:
795:
794:
776:
770:
760:
754:
748:
738:
732:
726:
725:
719:
711:
683:
672:
651:
645:
628:
566:Conley v. Gibson
507:Conley v. Gibson
430:Conley v. Gibson
295:Conley v. Gibson
177:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
941:
940:
934:
933:
932:
930:
929:
928:
889:
888:
867:
861:
858:
852:
849:
843:
840:
834:
818:
813:
812:
803:
802:
798:
778:
777:
773:
756:
755:
751:
734:
733:
729:
712:
700:
685:
684:
675:
652:
648:
629:
625:
620:
596:
556:Act of Congress
536:
398:
382:Gerard E. Lynch
348:
319:civil procedure
288:
230:
220:Clarence Thomas
218:
208:Anthony Kennedy
206:
196:John P. Stevens
158:903 (2006).
94:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
939:
938:
935:
927:
926:
921:
916:
911:
906:
901:
891:
890:
887:
886:
881:Case brief of
878:
870:
838:Google Scholar
817:
816:External links
814:
811:
810:
796:
771:
749:
727:
698:
673:
646:
622:
621:
619:
616:
615:
614:
607:
602:
595:
592:
535:
532:
397:
394:
347:
344:
300:
299:
290:
289:
286:
283:
282:
271:
270:
266:
265:
262:
258:
257:
254:
250:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
232:Stephen Breyer
204:Antonin Scalia
193:
190:
185:
179:
178:
174:
173:
165:
164:
160:
159:
115:
111:
110:
106:
105:
100:
96:
95:
88:
72:
68:
67:
62:
58:
57:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
937:
936:
925:
922:
920:
917:
915:
912:
910:
907:
905:
902:
900:
897:
896:
894:
885:
884:
879:
877:
875:
871:
866:
857:
848:
839:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
815:
806:
800:
797:
792:
791:
786:
784:
775:
772:
768:
764:
759:
753:
750:
746:
742:
737:
731:
728:
723:
717:
709:
705:
701:
695:
691:
690:
682:
680:
678:
674:
670:
667:
663:
659:
657:
650:
647:
643:
640:
636:
632:
627:
624:
617:
613:
612:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
597:
593:
591:
587:
582:
580:
576:
570:
568:
567:
561:
557:
551:
549:
548:Arlen Specter
545:
541:
533:
531:
529:
525:
524:
518:
514:
513:
508:
504:
500:
498:
497:amicus curiae
494:
490:
487:
482:
480:
479:
472:
470:
466:
460:
458:
454:
453:
447:
442:
440:
436:
432:
431:
425:
423:
418:
414:
412:
406:
404:
395:
393:
391:
387:
383:
378:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
357:
353:
352:Bell Atlantic
345:
343:
341:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:antitrust law
312:
308:
307:
297:
296:
291:
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:Case opinions
246:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
191:
189:
186:
184:Chief Justice
183:
182:
180:
175:
171:
166:
161:
157:
153:
149:
147:
142:
138:
135:
131:
127:
123:
120:
116:
112:
107:
104:
103:Oral argument
101:
97:
92:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
56:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
882:
873:
822:
799:
788:
782:
774:
757:
752:
735:
730:
688:
662:Oyez Project
655:
649:
630:
626:
609:
589:
584:
572:
564:
553:
543:
539:
537:
527:
521:
516:
510:
506:
502:
501:
483:
476:
474:
468:
464:
462:
456:
450:
445:
443:
434:
428:
426:
419:
415:
407:
399:
379:
360:trust-busted
349:
323:David Souter
305:
304:
303:
293:
269:Laws applied
240:Samuel Alito
235:
223:
216:David Souter
211:
199:
188:John Roberts
144:
129:
109:Case history
82:
53:
15:
769: 2005).
747: 2003).
327:Sherman Act
275:Sherman Act
170:Sherman Act
119:F. Supp. 2d
893:Categories
876:case brief
790:SCOTUSblog
708:1150919201
618:References
546:, Senator
517:Leatherman
356:Baby Bells
346:Background
335:plaintiffs
313:involving
61:Docket no.
785:on 11/27"
716:cite book
439:discovery
91:L. Ed. 2d
71:Citations
821:Text of
745:S.D.N.Y.
594:See also
486:law firm
396:Decision
363:AT&T
354:and the
338:Justice
331:pleading
253:Majority
126:S.D.N.Y.
99:Argument
55:situated
767:2d Cir.
540:Twombly
528:Twombly
503:Twombly
478:Twiqbal
469:Twombly
465:Twombly
446:Twombly
435:Twombly
384:of the
375:Verizon
261:Dissent
163:Holding
148:granted
143:2005),
141:2d Cir.
128:2003),
65:05-1126
868:
862:
859:
853:
850:
847:Justia
844:
841:
835:
765: (
761:,
743: (
739:,
706:
696:
660:, The
633:,
298:(1957)
238:
236:·
234:
226:
224:·
222:
214:
212:·
210:
202:
200:·
198:
132:, 425
829:
637:
544:Iqbal
459:test:
371:Qwest
154:
146:cert.
114:Prior
831:U.S.
722:link
704:OCLC
694:ISBN
639:U.S.
444:The
317:and
156:U.S.
134:F.3d
84:more
76:U.S.
74:550
827:550
666:IIT
664:at
642:544
635:550
581::"
152:548
122:174
79:544
895::
825:,
787:.
718:}}
714:{{
702:.
676:^
481:.
405:.
342:.
150:,
137:99
807:.
793:.
724:)
710:.
671:.
658:"
654:"
139:(
124:(
87:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.