The plausibility pleading regime of Twombly and Iqbal has generated continuing controversy and concern over its effects on the ability of plaintiffs, particularly certain categories of civil rights plaintiffs, to bring cases in federal court. This Article assesses the effects of plausibility pleading by undertaking a novel thought experiment: What would plaintiffs’ filing and pleading decisions look like in a world with no pleading standard at all? In other words, what if there were no motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and every filed case reached discovery? This Article shows that in this hypothetical world, plaintiffs usually either file factually detailed, plausible complaints or do not file at all. In short, pleading standards generally will not affect whether the plaintiff files suit or the court dismisses the complaint. Perhaps most surprisingly, this is true even for cases in which information asymmetries favor the defendants. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, not judges, are the gatekeepers to court, and pleading practices are driven not by doctrine but by settlement strategy. This analysis generates empirical predictions, which find support in a wide range of qualitative (though admittedly inconclusive) evidence. Further, this thought experiment may turn the normative critique of Twombly and Iqbal on its head: Plausibility pleading may advance, rather than undermine, the “liberal ethos” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plausibility pleading can make it easier for plaintiffs with risky but worthwhile cases to have their day in court.

If defendants cannot perfectly discern plaintiffs with serious claims from others, plaintiffs with strong claims need a way to credibly signal the strength of their cases. Civil procedure itself provides just such a mechanism: pleading! Through factually detailed pleading, a plaintiff communicates the strength of her case and thereby facilitates settlement. Under this view, the contents of pleadings in federal practice are driven not by the prospect of motions to dismiss but by the impetus to settle. Judges serve a minimal gatekeeping function because plaintiffs and their lawyers are the primary gatekeepers to the courts. In this way, I offer a functional theory of pleading, according to which Twombly and Iqbal are best understood as effecting a subtle, rather than dramatic, change in law and practice.

Importantly, the facts available to the plaintiff determine. A plaintiff who lacks facts implying a relatively high likelihood of success will abandon her claim, unless she can convince the defendant to settle. Such a plaintiff might approach the defendant and demand a settlement without filing a lawsuit, but a rational defendant will anticipate this possibility and will know that if he refuses settlement, the plaintiff will simply abandon her claim rather than hale him into court.

This, in turn, creates a problem for a plaintiff who has a strong claim. She, too, would prefer to settle out of court rather than to sue, because litigation is costly. But a defendant may refuse to settle if the defendant cannot reliably distinguish between this plaintiff and another plaintiff with a weaker claim. Thus, it benefits the plaintiff with the strong case to file a lawsuit and use the complaint as a credible signal of her willingness to pursue litigation. Detailed pleading is costly, but it allows the plaintiff with a strong claim to separate herself from the plaintiff with a weak claim. By doing this, she brings the defendant to the settlement table.

Applying some numbers to this model makes it more concrete. Litigating in federal court can be expensive even for plaintiffs bringing relatively modest claims. A rule of thumb is that a party ought to be prepared to spend $100,000 to litigate in federal court. Now imagine a plaintiff with a somewhat large claim of $250,000.

Read original article


Tags: