Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

1,000+ Citing briefs

  1. Hughey v. Trinity Containers Llc et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Brief in Support

    Filed July 27, 2016

    "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). In Breeden v. League Services Corp., 575 P.2d 1374, 1376 (Okla. 1978), and as acknowledged in Miller v. Miller, 956 P.2d 887, 900 (Okla. 1998), the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted the standards of section 46 of the Restatement of Torts (Second) (1997) for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under this standard, an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress "will lie only where there is extreme and outrageous conduct coupled with severe emotional distress."

  2. In Re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

    Reply Memorandum re Joint MOTION to Dismiss Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint

    Filed April 3, 2008

    See Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65 (plaintiff must allege more than “labels and conclusions”). Plaintiffs cite paragraph 4, Dir. Opp. at 30, but it alleges only, “[a]s a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, plaintiffs and members of the Class paid higher prices for TFT-LCD Products than what they would have paid in a competitive market.”

  3. Santiago Mendez v. Autoridad DE Energia Electrica DE Puerto Rico et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed August 12, 2016

    ’” Lorenzana v. S. Am. Restaurants Corp., 799 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79). The Complaint’s vague and conclusory factual allegations fail “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and thus cannot “survive[] a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

  4. Rael v. New York & Company, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint

    Filed February 27, 2017

    “A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains sufficient factual matter to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct alleged.”

  5. Modern Settings LLC et al v. Basf Metals Limited et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 115 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. . Document

    Filed September 21, 2015

    Although Plaintiffs choose to ignore it, such pre-Auction selling provides a more obvious and plausible explanation for the alleged pre-Auction price drop than the alleged manipulation claimed by Plaintiffs. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 567-68.29 c. The Complaint Fails To Adequately Allege That Defendants Had the Ability To Influence Prices.

  6. In re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 73 MOTION to Dismiss Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. . Document

    Filed April 30, 2015

    When those allegations are stripped away, plaintiffs only offer assertions that defendants had a supposed motive and opportunity to conspire, which falls far short of providing the “factual enhancement” needed to “nudge[] [plaintiffs’] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 569. Common Motive.

  7. Federal Trade Commission v. Abbvie Inc et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed November 12, 2014

    Given that the FTC’s case depends on all of these implausible assumptions being accepted, it simply cannot state an actionable claim. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–56 & n.3; In re Ins. Brokerage, 618 F.3d at 319; Great W. Mining & Mineral Co., 615 F.3d at 177. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss Count II of the FTC’s complaint with prejudice, and dismiss Count I to the extent it is based upon an alleged “reverse payment” under Actavis.

  8. Sims v. First Horizon National Corporation et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss Count I, and portions of Counts III, IV, and V of the Amended Complaint

    Filed September 8, 2009

    This bald assertion is not enough to “nudge[] [plaintiffs’] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Accordingly, Count I should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

  9. Anderson et al v. Snyder et al

    BRIEF in support of CORRECTED MOTION to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint

    Filed September 15, 2016

    If plaintiffs do not “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. ARGUMENTS I. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE HOW EACH OF THE MDEQ EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS, THROUGH THEIR INDIVIDUAL ACTS, COMMITTED THE TORTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT.

  10. Comprehensive Health Care Systems of the Palm Beaches, Inc. v. M3 USA Corporation et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed September 8, 2016

    The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is Case 2:13-cv-00489-RAJ Document 74 Filed 02/27/14 Page 3 of 18Case 9:16-cv-80967-BB Document 27-3 Ent red on LSD Docket 09/08/2016 Page 11 of 26 ORDER – 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint” that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.