Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Federal Civil Practice Bulletin
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Miscellaneous
: Federal Civil Practice BulletinProf. Hatamyar Posts Article on Twombly and Iqbal on SSRN
This article is an empirical study of the effect of Bell Atlantic Corp. vs. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft vs. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), two recent Supreme Court cases that portend the decline of ?notice pleading? in federal civil practice.
The article analyzes how Twombly and Iqbal have begun to dismantle the regime of notice pleading by not only discarding the ?no set of facts? standard of Conley vs. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), but by changing or ignoring other principles that federal courts have followed for decades on 12(b)(6) motions. The statistical study then examines how Twombly and Iqbal may have affected federal district court rulings on 12(b)(6) motions in practice.
The statistical analysis of 1,039 cases shows that 49% of 12(b)(6) motions were granted (with or without leave to amend) in the cases selected (from May 2005 to August 2009). Further, the rate of granting such motions increased from 46% of motions decided under Conley, to 48% of motions decided under Twombly, to 56% of motions decided under Iqbal. A multinomial logistic regression indicates that under Twombly/Iqbal, the odds of a 12(b)(6) motion being granted rather than denied are 1.5 times greater than under Conley, holding all other variables constant.
Moreover, the largest category of cases in which 12(b)(6) motions are filed was constitutional civil rights. Motions to dismiss in constitutional civil rights cases were granted at a higher rate (53%) than in cases overall (49%), and the rate of granting 12(b)(6) motions in constitutional civil rights cases increased in the cases selected from Conley (50%) to Twombly (55%) to Iqbal (60%).
The article concludes that Twombly and Iqbal have resulted in a noticeable increase in the granting of 12(b)(6) motions by district courts, and suggests that such a result, if desirable, should be accomplished by the normal rule-amendment process.
This Article may be downloaded by visiting http://ssrn.com/abstract=1487764.
Full post as published by Federal Civil Practice Bulletin on October 14, 2009 (boomark / email).

Access v. Efficiency: Reflections on the Consequences of Twombly and Iqbal
More Iqbal Fun: Senate Hearings on Iqbal/Twombly
Did Iqbal (and Twombly) Transform Pleadings
Ashcroft v. Iqbal: Taking Twombly a Step Further
Beyond Twombly (by Prof. Scott Dodson)







