The Supreme Court extended and changed the requirements for pleading a cause of action under Rule 8. In Twombly, the Court first applied the plausibility standard to a claim for antitrust violations by telecommunications providers. The Court, stated merely reciting that the telecommunications providers had entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy to prevent competition was insufficient to make the Plaintiffs’ claim plausible.
In Ashcroft, the Court applied the plausibility standard to a Plaintiff’s complaint of discriminatory treatment of detainees by the Immigration and Naturalization Officers. The Court stated that merely asserting conclusory allegations that Ashcroft was the principal architect of invidious discrimination and that Mueller was instrumental in adopting the policy was insufficient to meet the plausibility standard.
The Court went to on to reiterate that we must still accept all well plead allegations as true, but essentially, stated that we are not required to accept legal conclusory allegations, unless there are facts that turn the conceivable into the plausible. However you interpret Twombly or Ashcroft, it is clear that a Defendant’s motion to dismiss in Federal court has greater teeth and district court judges are now empowered to dispose of claims they find incredible.
It also seems that the plausibility standard is not limited to Antitrust complaints.