Following the Leader: Twombly, Pleading Standards, and Procedural Uniformity

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court retired Conley v. Gibson’s longstanding, seminal interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and strong endorsement of notice pleading. In place of Conley-style notice pleading, the Court substituted a vague “plausibility standard” that has confounded the legal community since its inception. This Note approaches Twombly from the perspective of the twenty-seven states that have modeled their procedural systems after Conley and the Federal Rules, and considers whether these states’ courts should adopt plausibility pleading. Using a reverse-Erie analysis, this Note first challenges commentators’ assertions that a dual state-Conley and federal-Twombly paradigm will lead to forum shopping when federal claims are adjudicated in state courts. In considering whether Twombly should govern state claims, this Note urges states to carefully consider the interplay between pleading standards and existing discovery mechanisms, and the normative value of Conley-style notice pleading. Finally, this Note traces the evolution of federal- state intrastate procedural uniformity and concludes that the traditional arguments in favor of conformity are inapt.