Also known as:plausibility pleading · plausibly plead · plausibly pleaded · plausibility standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 that requires a complaint to allege enough factual matter to state a claim plausible on its face. The standard demands concrete facts that support a reasonable inference of liability rather than labels, conclusions, or allegations merely consistent with liability.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Antitrust Suit Over Parallel Filings
Platinum Partners, a generic-drug maker, sued three brand-name firms alleging they conspired to delay generic approval through serial patent suits. The complaint cited overlapping filings and similar arguments plus a bare assertion that the firms acted in concert. The court granted the motion to dismiss because the facts showed only parallel conduct equally consistent with independent responses to market conditions and supplied no additional details suggesting an actual agreement.
Discrimination Claim Against Officials
Phuong Pham, a Pakistani detainee, sued Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller alleging they personally directed discriminatory treatment of Arab and Muslim men after September 11. The complaint asserted that the officials knew of and condoned the abuse but supplied no facts linking them to specific decisions beyond their high-level positions. The court dismissed the claims because the allegations were conclusory and did not plausibly establish the officials' personal involvement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Ashcroft v. Iqbal556 U.S. 662 (2009)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What must a complaint contain to survive a motion to dismiss under the plausible pleading standard?+
A complaint must allege enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Courts disregard bare legal conclusions and ask whether the remaining facts support a reasonable inference of liability rather than mere possibility.
Supporting sources
Does parallel conduct alone satisfy the plausible pleading standard in an antitrust conspiracy case?+
No. Parallel conduct such as simultaneous pricing or filings is consistent with lawful independent action and does not cross the line to plausibility without additional facts suggesting an actual agreement.
Supporting sources
How does a court treat conclusory assertions such as knowing concealment or acting in concert?+
Courts disregard conclusory assertions as legal conclusions. Only well-pleaded factual allegations that nudge the claim from possible to plausible are credited when evaluating a motion to dismiss.
Supporting sources
What role do plus factors play when parallel conduct is alleged?+
Plus factors are additional factual allegations that tend to exclude independent action and make an agreement more plausible. Without them, parallel conduct remains consistent with lawful behavior and fails the plausibility test.
Supporting sources
550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)Civil Procedure
…merely parallel behavior explained in Theatre Enterprises , Monsanto , and Matsushita , and their main argument against the plausibility standard at the pleading stage is its ostensible conflict with an early statement construing Rule 8. Justice Black's opinion for the Court in Conley v. Gibson spoke not only of the need for fair…