{"id":1133,"date":"2015-09-15T21:52:38","date_gmt":"2015-09-15T21:52:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=1133"},"modified":"2023-04-20T11:49:13","modified_gmt":"2023-04-20T15:49:13","slug":"patience-please-rhode-island-supreme-court-reminds-litigants-it-has-not-yet-adopted-iqbal-and-twombly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/pleadings\/patience-please-rhode-island-supreme-court-reminds-litigants-it-has-not-yet-adopted-iqbal-and-twombly\/","title":{"rendered":"Patience Please: Rhode Island Supreme Court Reminds Litigants It Has Not Yet Adopted Iqbal And Twombly"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly<\/em>, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), significantly modified the standard of review applied to motions to dismiss in federal courts. \u00a0A few years later, in 2009, relying on Twombly<\/em>, the United States Supreme Court again addressed the standard of review applied to motions to dismiss in federal courts and explained that under its modified standard, a complaint must contain \u201csufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to \u2018state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.\u2019\u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal<\/em>, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly<\/em>, 550 U.S. at 570).<\/p>\n

Thus, under the federal courts\u2019 plausibility standard, the plaintiff must plead \u201cfactual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\u201d \u00a0Iqbal<\/em>, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly<\/em>, 550 U.S. at 556).<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the federal court\u2019s adoption of the plausibility standard eight years ago, Rhode Island continues to adhere to the traditional rule that a motion to dismiss may be granted \u201conly \u2018if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that a plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any conceivable set of facts [.]\u2019\u201d\u00a0 DiLibero v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc<\/em>., 108 A.3d 1013, 1015 (R.I. 2015) (quoting Narragansett Electric Co. v. Minardi<\/em>, 21 A.3d 274, 277 (R.I. 2011)).<\/p>\n

In its 2014 term, the Rhode Island Supreme Court noted that it \u201chas not yet addressed whether continued adherence to our traditional Rhode Island standard is appropriate or whether the new Federal guide of plausibility should be adopted.\u201d \u00a0Chhun v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc<\/em>., 84 A.3d 419, 422-23 (R.I. 2014).<\/p>\n

In DiLibero<\/em>, two years before the Supreme Court’s decision in Chhun<\/em>, the trial justice dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s complaint after finding that it was \u201crife with conclusory statements and erroneous legal theories, all of which he discredited.\u201d 108 A.3d at 1015. \u00a0When the case reached the Supreme Court for argument a year after the Court\u2019s decision in Chhun<\/em>, the plaintiff argued, inter alia<\/em>, that the hearing justice erroneously relied on the standard articulated in Iqbal<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that after its review of the trial justice\u2019s written decision, \u201cit appears that he relied upon the standard articulated in Iqbal<\/em>, despite the fact that [the Rhode Island Supreme Court] has yet to adopt that standard.\u201d \u00a0Id<\/em>. at 1016.<\/p>\n

Rather than addressing whether Rhode Island should adopt the federal court\u2019s plausibility standard, the Supreme Court reviewed the plaintiff\u2019s allegations under the traditional Rhode Island standard and concluded that the plaintiff had adequately stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 1017.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court\u2019s judgment and remanded the case.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), significantly modified the standard of review applied to motions to dismiss in federal courts. \u00a0A few years later, in 2009, relying on Twombly, the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[129],"tags":[130,131,35,14],"class_list":["post-1133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pleadings","tag-motions-to-dismiss","tag-plausibility-standard","tag-rhode-island-superior-court-practice","tag-rhode-island-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1133","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}