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.
All Content © 2003‐2013, Portfolio Media, Inc.
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.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.