Herrmann, Beck, and Burbank Debate Twombly and Iqbal
posted by University of Pennsylvania Law Review
In Plausible Denial: Should Congress Overrule Twombly and Iqbal?, Mark Herrmann and James Beck debate with Professor Stephen Burbank whether the plausibility standard set out in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal is a proper “recalibration” of the pleading rules or an illegitimate “innovation” and whether Congress would be wise to overrule it. In their Opening Statement, Herrmann and Beck argue that the drafters of the Federal Rules intentionally left Rule 8 ambiguous. The creation of new federal rights, liberalization of class action rules, and massive escalation of discovery costs warranted the retirement of the “no set of facts” language from the Court’s earlier interpretation of Rule 8. In their view, the new course set by the Supreme Court is the proper one.
Check back weekly as the debate unfolds. As always, please visit PENNumbra to read previous Responses and Debates, or to check out pdfs of the Penn Law Review‘s print edition articles.
December 2, 2009 at 11:05 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Penn), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Leave a Reply