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
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
The average cost of family health insurance coverage rose 3% to $13,770 in 2010, while at the same time the employee's share of the c...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
(BY HUGO) Linda Gyulai reports in the Montreal Gazette here that the City of Montreal and Génieau have begun arbitration to settle the com...
-
There are four house bills that propose changes to the current custody statute. However, H.1306 and H.2684 are practically the same, though...
-
(BY HUGO) A report from MARSH Canada, A Review of Water-Related Opportunities and Threats , outlines insurance issues in the sector to ensur...
-
According to a New York Times article , the New York State legislature recently approved legislation that would allow No-Fault divorces in N...
-
There are two ways to ask this question: Can I start dating while my divorce case is pending? and Should I start dating while my divorce cas...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...