Twombly and Iqbal Should Not Be Overstated

Certain circuit court decisions demonstrate that although Twombly was meant to protect litigants from the burden of defending against meritless antitrust suits, the district courts should still give antitrust plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt at the pleading stage.

February 5, 2013

Law360, New York (February 05, 2013, 12:01 PM ET) ‐‐ There can be no dispute: The United States Supreme Court decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), have significantly transformed federal litigation. This transformation of the federal pleading standard, however, has not resulted in uniformity. Put simply, not every federal district gives Twombly and Iqbal equal force. Some federal courts apply those decisions in a manner that arguably creates an unfair burden on plaintiffs, especially antitrust plaintiffs seeking to adequately allege antitrust conspiracy and to proceed to discovery.

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.

Disclaimer

Law360

READ FULL ARTICLE