§ 5.2 Pleading in Federal Court

• Library: Oregon Civil Pleading and Litigation (OSBar) (2020 Ed.)

§ 5.2 PLEADING IN FEDERAL COURT

§ 5.2-1 Standards

Requirements for code pleading in Oregon state courts differ markedly from the requirements for notice pleading in federal courts. Under the federal rules, "notice pleading" will suffice. In other words, the pleadings need not allege facts constituting the claim for relief or defense; they need only give fair notice of the pleader's claim or defense so that opposing parties can form a responsive pleading, undertake discovery, and prepare for trial. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 US 41, 45-47, 78 S Ct 99, 2 L Ed 2d 80 (1957), abrogated on other grounds as stated in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544, 562-63, 127 S Ct 1955, 167 L Ed 2d 929 (2007).

In Bell Atl. Corp., 550 US at 561-63, the United States Supreme Court rejected the oft-stated rule that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted will be denied unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove "no set of facts" entitling the plaintiff to relief. Instead, the complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" and more than merely "conceivable." Bell Atl. Corp., 550 US at 570. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are [taken as] true . . . ." Bell Atl. Corp., 550 US at 555 (citations omitted). In construing the complaint, the court must accept as true all material allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662, 677-80, 129 S Ct 1937, 173 L Ed 2d 868 (2009); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F3d 962, 967-69 (9th Cir 2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft, 556 US at 678. If a "complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility.'" Ashcroft, 556 US at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550 US at 557).

A federal court considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not the state law in question. E. Refractories Co., Inc. v. Forty Eight Insulations, Inc., 658 F Supp 197, 202 (SDNY 1987). A motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" may be brought under FRCP...