Also known as: FRCP 8
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal rule of civil procedure requiring that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The rule demands enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face rather than merely possible or consistent with liability.
PixelPost LLC sued several media companies alleging an unlawful conspiracy to limit its ad access. The complaint stated only that PixelPost received lower rates than legacy outlets and that all parties used the same ad network. The court disregarded the bare label of conspiracy and found the remaining facts equally consistent with independent pricing decisions, so the claim failed to cross the plausibility threshold.
PixelSpark LLC sued ConnectNet alleging an antitrust conspiracy to block its app. The complaint cited vague industry-wide coordination and simultaneous policy changes across platforms but supplied no facts about any actual agreement. The court held that these allegations described only conduct consistent with lawful independent action and therefore did not state a plausible claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A plaintiff sued a municipality alleging civil rights violations. The complaint asserted only that officials acted with deliberate indifference and provided no supporting facts. The court disregarded the conclusory statements and held that the remaining allegations failed to state a plausible claim under Rule 8.
A plaintiff filed an employment discrimination suit with only a formulaic recitation of the elements. The court examined whether the facts permitted a reasonable inference of liability and dismissed the complaint for failing to meet Rule 8's plausibility requirement.
In a diversity action the defendant challenged the complaint's sufficiency. The court applied Rule 8 and held that only a short and plain statement with enough facts to make relief plausible was required, rejecting any heightened standard.
A railroad defendant moved to dismiss a personal-injury complaint that contained only labels and conclusions. The court explained that Rule 8 requires well-pleaded facts that plausibly support the claim rather than mere possibility of liability.
A complaint must include enough factual matter, taken as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Courts disregard conclusory allegations and then determine whether the remaining well-pleaded facts permit a reasonable inference of liability rather than merely describing conduct consistent with both lawful and unlawful behavior.
Supporting sources
No. Parallel conduct and simultaneous policy changes are consistent with independent, lawful decisions in a competitive market. The complaint must supply additional nonconclusory facts that tend to exclude independent action and make an actual agreement a plausible inference.
Supporting sources
Courts disregard conclusory allegations and legal conclusions. They then assess whether the remaining factual allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief rather than merely being consistent with liability.
Supporting sources
…the enforcement of state law. "Respondent contends, in the first place, that the charge was correct because of the fact that Rule 8 (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure makes contributory negligence an affirmative defense. We do not agree. Rule 8 (c) covers only the manner of pleading. The question of the burden of…