Comments on: Iqbal Keeps Spreading

By: r.friedman

r.friedman — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:27:56 +0000

Orin —
Rule 2 calls for a just and inexpensive resolution of the case, if plaintiffs can’t get relief for actual injury, it’s not just although it may be inexpensive. What about putting the shoe on the other fit, requiring a defendant to answer the complaint instead of just filing a 12b motion and enforcing the rules for admitting or denying strongly?

By: disabled pro se in Fed Third Circuit Ct of Appeals

disabled pro se in Fed Third Circuit Ct of Appeals — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:23:04 +0000

We are disabled folks, unfortunately pro se, appealing the dismissal of a
failure to accommodate
2007 claim at a high school where child lost out on vocational education and all this unique high school offered. The District Court’s decision was April so only Twombly was cited. He is now a unfortunately a (disabled) adult. The Defendants are opposed to appointment of counsel for the appeal.
I cannot find any other Iqbal tyep cases on failure to accommodate so far (to get a handle on how we did not allege properly). Might our case mean something for many people?

By: AF

AF — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:57:22 +0000

“Might Iqbal lower some of the very high costs of civil litigation?”

Iqbal might well be good policy. It’s not the policy reflected in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:01:45 +0000

Jon writes:

“The defendant knows perfectly well what the case is about — plaintiff slipped and fell in defendant’s store and claims that defendant is responsible. We don’t need any more to get started. There are other mechanisms to thrash out questions such as the questions raised by this case — specifically, discovery and motions for summary judgment.”

Those mechanisms exist, but they are costly. Might Iqbal lower some of the very high costs of civil litigation?

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:43:59 +0000

This opinion takes Twombly/Iqbal to an extreme. “Negligently failed to remove or warn” seems to me functionally identical to “negligently drove.”

By: Jon Siegel

Jon Siegel — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:36:42 +0000

I’m sure some judge will try that, but I don’t see how it could possibly be correct, given that Rule 84 provides that “The forms in the Appendix suffice under these rules.” That’s why I think the best fix for Iqbal is to add some new forms.

By: Howard Wasserman

Howard Wasserman — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:24:45 +0000

The real Iqbal takeover of pleading will come when a court uses it to demand more facts in a traffic accident case–what did the other driver *do* that was negligent? Then Form 9/11 truly will be dead.

By: Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Jaya Ramji-Nogales — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:18:49 +0000

Welcome to the blog, Jon, and thanks for the shout out — but just to clarify, I didn’t write the post on Iqbal to which you link above. The post was a guest blog by my law school classmate Adam Steinman (posted by me, which understandably may have confused the reader). I’m not yet sure how I come down on Iqbal’s impact!