Body By Cook, Inc., et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, et al.

The Fifth Circuit essentially ignored Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and held that Petitioners’ second amended complaint met Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but nevertheless dismissed the complaint based on Bank of Abbeville & Tr. Co. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 201 F. App’x 988 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). It explained, “mere compliance with Rule 8 does not itself immunize the complaint against a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 990. App. 5. The Fifth Circuit further stated that “Rule 8(a)(2) specifies the conditions of the formal adequacy of a pleading. It does not specify the conditions of its substantive adequacy, that is, its legal merit.” Id. App. 5. The court continued, “Thus, in Bank of Abbeville, we held that the complaint satisfied Rule 8’s formal requirements by pleading a short and plain statement of the claim, but that dismissal was nevertheless proper because the plaintiff ‘would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts or any possible theory that it could prove consistent with the complaint’s allegations.’ ” Id. App. 5. As a result, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioners’ second amended complaint that met Rule 8. Whether the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of Petitioners’ second amended complaint – which it held met Rule 8 but not the additional “substantive adequacy” pleading conditions – and application of a pleading standard derived from Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), conflict with this Court’s rulings in Bell