What People Think
 |
 |
50% For, 50% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 1504, The Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009 (6 comments ↓)
S. 1504 would provide that Federal courts shall not dismiss complaints under rule 12(b)(6) or (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).
()
[67 views]
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Glenn J
July 23, 2009, 2:40pm (report abuse)1st, this is a violation of separation of powers. Only Courts may determine how to apply the FRCP.By limiting 12(b)(6) motions to Conley v. Gibson, Congress will limit the Court to denying claims when, "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief," (355 US 41 [1957]@ 45-46), not Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which Abrogated the ruling and held that a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.
The fundamental questions are these?
1. Can Congress rewrite Supreme Court Jurisprudence?
2. If they can, what is the wisdom in allowing a judge to, sua sponte, dismiss any claim the judge determines that there is no set of facts upon which the plaintiff may prevail, based on feelings about probability?
This bill is overstepping the bounds of legislative power.
Kristen W.
July 24, 2009, 11:38am (report abuse)This is disheartening. Twombly, and Iqbal are well thought out opinions. A Claimant has the advantage of the presumption of truth to their Complaint, therefore, the balance to that presumption should be some well presented factual support.
I wholly agree that this bill would further stunt trust in the power and sanctity of the judicial system.
Glenn J
July 30, 2009, 6:16pm (report abuse)Sorry, Glenn, you're wrong. The legislature can rewrite most (though not all) Supreme Court jurisprudence, and it happens all the time. I happen to agree with the Twombly/Iqbal standards, but Congress is within its powers to direct a change.
PG
August 12, 2009, 12:45am (report abuse)This bill should not be passed. Plaintiffs will be required to prove their cases at trial so why not start the suit out by explaining why they are suing. Notice of the legal claim and its factual basis is not a whole lot to ask. Think back to your teenage years (or even better - your kids' teenage years) and ask yourself if the answer to the question "Why were you out past curfew?" is "Because I was acting as a reasonably prudent person" you would say, "I want to know where you were, who with, and specifically what you were doing, before I decide whether to ground you or just take away your iphone." When did plaintiffs become so adverse to admitting or revealing the alleged truth?!
Richard L
August 13, 2009, 1:21am (report abuse)Notice pleading has been in force in the federal courts for 59 years. It is based on the principle that a case should be resolved on the evidence, not how the lawyer states it or the judge reads it. Delays in filing to the scheduling order even under notice pleading were usually 9 months. Since the reign of Henry II in the 12th Century, judges have taken allegations of the complaint as true. They have no ability or basis to determine the "plausibility" of allegations.
The bill should pass quickly and remind the five person majority to refrain from radical changes to accepted litigation norms.
eddy
September 24, 2009, 9:21pm (report abuse)Pass the bill ASAP! Iqbal has taken pleading standards to another level; ridiculously ambiguous and much higher than the intended standard based on FRCP.