Wednesday audio--Section A, Section B.
No new reading, but review what you did for today.
• We can think of plausibility as a baseline--one's initial, common-sense reaction to some facts. How does this work in Swierkiewicz and Morgan?
• What determines whether the allegations, taken as true, state a plausible claim?
• Is this legal or factual insufficiency and what should be the terms of dismissal?
• What makes an allegation conclusory or nonconclusory (hint: Note how Iqbal describes not-presumed-as-true conclusions)? Consider Swierkiewicz and a car accident case--what would be a conclusory allegation in each and what would be a nonconclusory allegation?
• What does it mean that this is a context-specific inquiry? What is the context of Twombly and Iqbal? What happens to the pleading standard if you change the context?
• Be ready to discuss the sufficiency or insufficiency of the complaints in Twombly, Iqbal, Godin, and VOA. Be ready to point to specific ¶s in the complaints that establish the claim.
