The Second Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the pleading requirements of the Trombly and Iqbal line of cases. In Anderson News, LLC v. America Media, Inc. (2012 WL 1085948) ____F.3d ____ (2nd. Cir. 2012) the district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. B 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court ruled that the alleged conspiracy was facially implausible under the standards set by Trombly and Iqbal. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
In doing so the court noted:
“However, to present a plausible claim at the pleading stage, the plaintiff need not show that its allegations suggesting an agreement are more likely than not true or that they rule out the possibility of independent action, as would be required at later litigation stages such as a defense motion for summary judgment (citations omitted).”
The court noted that the requirement of plausibility does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage. The court said:
“Because plausibility is a standard lower than probability, a given set of actions may well be subject to diverging interpretations each of which is possible. See generally Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985) (“Two or more witnesses may tell mutually inconsistent but coherent and facially plausible stories”) The choice between or among plausible inferences or scenarios is one for the fact finder…the choice between two reasonable interpretations of…testimony properly is left for the jury.
The choice between two plausible inferences that may be drawn from factual allegations is not a choice to be made by the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion…a court ruling on such a motion may not properly dismiss a complaint that states a plausible version of events merely because the court finds a different version more plausible.”
(TAA President, Tom Lynch represented one of the plaintiffs which is a subsidiary of the main plaintiff)