Is Iqbal the New Twombly?
in flatbread, Iqbal, legal trends, twombly

Remember when Twombly came out in late 2006 and it showed up in just about every motion to dismiss?
Twombly, Twombly, Twombly.
Everywhere you went, people were talking about "Twombly."
You had to pretend to know something about it at judicial functions, there were teleconferences on it, and associates billed incessantly to copy and paste the part of the brief that dealt with it over and over and over again.
It was the "economic loss rule" of 2007.
Now, it seems, everyone is talking about Iqbal:
Even Justice Souter, who wrote for the majority in Twombly, thought Iqbal went too far, what with expecting judges to use "common sense" and determining what's "plausible" -- hah!“Iqbal is the most significant Supreme Court decision in a decade for day-to-day litigation in the federal courts,” said Thomas C. Goldstein, an appellate lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington.
On its face, the Iqbal decision concerned the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The court ruled that a Muslim man swept up on immigration charges could not sue two Bush administration officials for what he said was the terrible abuse he suffered in detention.
But something much deeper and broader was going on in the decision, something that may unsettle how civil litigation is conducted in the United States. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dissented from the decision, told a group of federal judges last month that the ruling was both important and dangerous. “In my view,” Justice Ginsburg said, “the court’s majority messed up the federal rules” governing civil litigation.
Sheesh, they're federal judges, give them a break!
Indeed, just a few days ago Judge Conway of the Middle District dismissed a false marketing suit involving Seroquel, citing Iqbal.
I hate legal trends, and particularly trendy decisions or theories that are untested and which run amuck for a while before things get back to normal.
So now everything is going to be about Iqbal, at least for the near future, before somebody realizes that maybe we went too far and we can go back to normal pleading practices, you know, Rule 1, Rule 8, Rule 12 -- the oldies but goodies.
And so, kids, now you know why I hate flatbread.
This entry was posted on at 1:22 AM and is filed under flatbread, Iqbal, legal trends, twombly. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
The AFL-CIO blog claims a new study shows the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans would affect significantly more non-union w...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
-
My students and readers of this blog know my support for Dana Corp 's approach to ensure that employees' right to select union r...