*1 BELL ATLANTIC CORP. et al. v. TWOMBLY et al.

No. Argued May 21, 05-1126. November 2006 Decided *3 Roberts, J., Souter, J., Court, in C. opinion of the which delivered the Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Auto, JJ., Scalia, joined. Ste- Ginsburg, J., vens, J., except joined, dissenting opinion, in which filed a IV, post, p. 570. as to Part *4 petitioners. Kellogg argued for cause K.

Michael Hansen, M. Mark Aaron were C. With him on briefs Shapiro, Stephen Kenneth Taranto, M. Panner, Richard G. Henry Timothy Beyer, Favretto, J. Getter, J. Richard S. Galonsky, Larkin, Thorne, Paul J. Walker, F John Marc W. Delaney, Cynthia Webb, P. K. Wheeler, Dan Jr., David E. Aguilar, M. and Schur. William Javier argued for cause Attorney Barnett General

Assistant urging With reversal. as amicus curiae United States Deputy Clement, Solicitor General him were on brief Maynard, Hungar, Solicitor General Deanne E. Catherine O’Connell, O’Sullivan, Jr., J. Hill James G. B. Wellford. and Douglas J. Richards for the cause argued respondents. M. was Michael Buchman.* brief With him on the delivered the of Court. opinion Justice Souter § 1 Act, under of Sherman U. S. C. Liability re- “contract, , combination ... quires re- conspiracy, straint trade or commerce.” The question of this putative §a 1 class action is whether can survive motion when it dismiss that major telecommunications alleges in certain conduct providers parallel unfavorable to engaged *Briefs of curiae filed for urging amici reversal were the Common- McDonnell, Virginia by Attorney wealth Robert F. General Virginia, Thro, General, Stephen McCullough, E. William State Solicitor R. Deputy General, Mims, Deputy Attorney State Solicitor C. William Chief Gen- Allen, eral, Attorney General, by and Sarah Oxenham Assistant Orville II, B. Attorney Fitch New Deputy Hampshire, by General of and At- torneys General respective Troy King for their States follows: of Ala- Colorado, bama, Idaho, G. John Suthers of Lawrence Wasden of Steve Car- Indiana, Kansas, ter Michigan, Kline of Phill Michael A. Cox of Jon Nebraska, Pruning Dakota, Wayne Stenehjem of North W. A Drew Oklahoma, Corbett, Jr., Edmondson of W. of Pennsylvania, Thomas Pat- Island, Dakota, Long rick C. Lynch Larry of Rhode of South Paul G. Tennessee, Utah; Summers and L. Mark for the American Shurtleff by Metzler, A Long, Petroleum Institute P. Harry Robert Theodore M. Morris; Ng, Douglas W. for Chamber of Commerce of the United Jr., Russell, Roy States of al. T. by Englert, America et J. Donald Mat- Conrad, Sarwal, Segal, thew R. John T. Whatley, Robin S. Amar D. Mi- Altschul, Quentin Amundson, Riegel, chael Field Jan S. B. Kenney, Peter Jr., Fewell, Popofsky, Mark S. Guy Stephenson, Kathryn and Saul P. Morgenstem; Legal by Huffman; for Scholars Max for MasterCard Hacker, Muris, by Inc. Timothy International et al. J. Jonathan D. Farrington. Rebecca H. C.

Parker Folse III filed a for the American Antitrust brief Institute as urging amicus curiae affirmance.

Briefs of Bar Association by amici curiae were filed for the American Mathis, Joseph Henry; Angland, Karen J. E. and Roxann Economists Pate; by R. Alan Lyn Hewitt and for Bassett et al. Erie Isaac- Debra Christopher son and M. Burke.

549 context some factual agree- absent suggesting competition, identical, action. We as distinct from ment, independent such dismissed. should hold I the American Tele of the 1984 divestiture of

The upshot (AT&T) local busi & telephone phone Telegraph Company’s ness was a service system regional monopolies (variously Bells,” Bell Operating “Baby called “Regional Companies,” (ILECs)), and a or “Incumbent Local Carriers” Exchange market service from competitive long-distance separate, later, which the were More than a decade ILECs excluded. ILECs’ withdrew approval monopolies by

Congress (1996 Act), Act 1996 110 Telecommunications enacting 56, which local Stat. “fundamentally telephone restructure[d] host of in markets” duties “subjected] [ILECs] Corp. Iowa AT&T tended to facilitate market entry.” Bd., (1999). Utilities In 366, S. 371 U. recompense, 1996 Act set conditions for ILECs to enter the authorizing §271. market. U. See S. C. long-distance scheme each obli- ILEC’s] “Central [new] [was Veri- network with ... share its competitors,” gation zon Communications Inc. v. Law Curtis V. Offices of Trinko, LLP, (2004), which to be came (CLECs), known as local carriers” exchange “competitive 1. A make of an ILEC’s Pet. for Cert. n. CLEC could use (1) local tele- network in three ways: by “purchasing] users,” resale end services at wholesale rates for phone (2) ‘on unbun- network elements “leasing] [ILEC’s] ” (3) with its own facilities basis,’ dled “interconnecting] supra, Bd., Iowa Utilities at 371 network.” [ILEC’s] 251(c)). ex- to the “considerable S. C. U. Owing (quoting ele- network to make unbundled required effort” pense supra, Trinko, at wholesale ments available rivals prices, shar- ILECs scope vigorously litigated Act, with the result imposed by obligation ing (FCC) three times Commission Federal Communications *6 regulations range revised its to narrow the of network ele- ments to be shared with the See Covad CLECs. Communi- (CADC 2006) 3d FCC, 528, cations Co. v. 450 F. 533-534 10-year-long (summarizing regulatory struggle between CLECs). the ILECs and

Respondents Twombly William Lawrence and Marcus (hereinafter plaintiffs) represent putative consisting class telephone high speed of all local “subscribers of and/or in- February present.” 8, ternet . . from 1996 to services . (GEL) (SDNY) Complaint in Amended No. CIV. (hereinafter ¶ App. Complaint). against 53, In this action petitioners, group plaintiffs of ILECs,1 treble seek dam- ages declaratory injunctive and and for relief claimed viola- §1 tions Act, 647, the Sherman ch. Stat. 209, as prohibits “[ejvery amended, U. S. C. which contract, conspiracy, otherwise, combination in the form of trust or among in restraint of trade or commerce the several States, foreign or with nations.” alleges complaint conspired to re- ILECs ways, supposedly inflating charges

strain trade in two each telephone high-speed for local Internet services. Plain- say, “engaged parallel tiffs first, that the in ILECs conduct” respective growth in up- their service areas to inhibit Complaint App. start ¶47, CLECs. Their actions 23-26. allegedly making agreements included unfair with the providing CLECs access networks, to ILEC inferior con- billing ways nections overcharging, networks, to the in designed sabotage the CLECs’ relations with own their According complaint, customers. Ibid. to the the ILECs’ 1 The 1984 divestiture of local telephone AT&T’s service created seven Bell Regional Operating Companies. Through a of mergers series acquisitions, companies seven those were consolidated into the four ILECs in Corporation, named this suit: BellSouth Qwest Communications Inter national, Inc., Communications, Inc., Communications, SBC and Verizon (successor-in-interest Inc. Corporation). ¶ to Bell Complaint Atlantic 16. App. Together, allegedly these or more of percent ILECs control 90 Id., the market for local telephone service the 48 States. contiguous 48, App. ¶ 26. common thwart motivatio[n]” CLECs’

“compelling efforts led them naturally to form competitive conspiracy; one . . . CLECs sought prevent “[h]ad [ILEC] , the from com- competing effectively resulting greater inroads into would have re- petitive territory [ILEC’s] vealed the which degree CLECs competitive entry by would have been successful the other territories Id., of such absence conduct.” 26-27. ¶ App.

Second, the charges ILECs agreements refrain from one These against another. are competing to be inferred from the ILECs’ common failure “meaning- *7 pursu[e]” “attractive business in [to] fully opportunities]” markets where “substantial contiguous com- they possessed id., 40-41, 21-22, and advantages,” ¶¶ from a petitive App. Notebaert, statement of Richard chief executive officer (CEO) of the ILEC that in Qwest, territory competing “ of another ILEC be turn dol- good way quick ‘might id., that lar but doesn’t make 22. right,’” App. ¶ ultimate The couches its this complaint allegations way: “In the absence of between competition meaningful in in one another’s markets, [ILECs] and light course that in to of conduct each parallel engaged pre- vent from within their competition CLECs respective local internet services telephone high and/or mar- speed kets and the other facts and market circumstances al- above, Plaintiffs information and belief leged allege upon contract, that entered into a combina- [the ILECs] have in tion their entry conspiracy prevent competitive local and/or internet speed respective high telephone have services markets and not to with agreed compete one another otherwise allocated customers mar- Id., kets one another.” 27.2 App. ¶ § relief, repeats for 1 setting grounds complaint In forth the these substantially language: allegations similar 6,1996, early February continuing at least as to the

“Beginning Plaintiffs, being the exact dates unknown Defendants and their present, contract, conspiracy pre- in a co-conspirators engaged combination or District Southern The United States Court District New York dismissed the for failure to state claim which relief can District Court upon granted. cit “plaintiffs may conspiracy acknowledged allege by business behavior instances ing parallel suggest “while but ‘[circumstantial emphasized agreement,” evidence of behavior have consciously may made parallel inroads into the traditional attitude heavy toward judicial has not . . “conscious parallelism” read conspiracy[, yet .] out of the Act Sherman conspiracy entirely.’” F. Supp. Enterprises, Inc. Theatre v. Para (2003) 174, 179 2d (quoting Distributing Corp., mount Film 541 (1954); Thus, alterations the District Court under original). stood that conduct, business taken allegations parallel alone, do claim 1; not state a under must plaintiffs allege additional facts to exclude “ten[d] self- independent interested conduct as an for defendants’ explanation parallel 2d, behavior.” 313 F. at 179. The District Supp. Court found ILEC actions to plaintiffs’ dis parallel because courage “the behavior of competition inadequate each ILEC the incursion of CLECs is ex resisting fully plained ILEC’s own interests in its individ defending Id., ual 183. As to ILECs’ territory.” supposed *8 with other, each agreement against District competing Court found that does not . . . facts “alleg[e] from in other ter suggesting refraining competing ritories as CLECs was to contrary apparent [the ILECs’] economic interests, not consequently [does] rais[e] inference that the result [the actions were con ILECs’] Id., at 188. spiracy.” entry

vent competitive respective in their local telephone and/or high speed internet by, among services things, agreeing markets other to compete with attempts by compete one another others to with and to stifle them and and markets to one another in allocating otherwise customers Id., violation of Section 1 30-31. App. ¶ of the Sherman Act.” The Court of for the Appeals Second Circuit reversed, holding District Court tested the complaint by standard. It held that wrong factors are not “plus required pleaded an antitrust permit claim based on parallel conduct to survive (2005) (em dismissal.” 99, 114 F. 3d phasis original). Court of took the Although Appeals view that must plaintiffs facts that “include plead conspiracy the realm of among ‘plausible’ order possibilities to sur vive a motion to dismiss,” it then said that “to rule that alle gations fail parallel conduct anticompetitive support plausible claim, a court would conspiracy have to conclude there is no set of facts that would permit plaintiff demonstrate that the particular asserted parallelism was the of collusion rather product Ibid. than coincidence.” We granted certiorari to address the standard for proper an antitrust conspiracy through allegations paral- lel conduct, 548 U. S. 903 (2006), now reverse.

II A §1 Because of the Sherman Act “does not prohibit [all] unreasonable restraints of trade . . . but restraints ef only r fected a contract, or combination, conspiracy,” Coppe weld Corp. Tube Independence Corp., U. S.

(1984), crucial “[t]he is whether an question” challenged conduct ticompetitive from decision independent “stem[s] from an tacit or Theatre agreement, Enterprises, express,” S.,U. at 540. While a of parallel “business be showing havior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder infer may falls short of “conclu agreement,” sively establishing] or . . . itself agreement constituting] a Sherman Act Id., offense.” Even 540-541. “conscious a common parallelism,” reaction of in a “firms concentrated market their recogniz[e] [that] shared economic interests and their with interdependence deei- respect price output

554 Group Brooke Ltd. “not itself unlawful.” v.

sions” is Corp., 509 Brown Tobacco & Williamson U. S. H. 6 P. Areeda & (1993); Hovenkamp, see Antitrust Law Ajreeda (hereinafter 2003) (2d ed. 1433a, & Hoven- p. ¶ (“The are unanimous nearly courts kamp) saying mere does establish the con- parallelism interdependent tract, combination, by Sherman Act conspiracy required § Definition of Under 1”); Turner, The the Sher- Agreement Deal, Parallelism and Refusals man Conscious Act: (1962) (“[M]ere of interdependence Harv. L. Rev. is not conspiracy”). basic decisions price of conduct or interde- showing parallel The inadequacy more, mirrors the behav- ambiguity without pendence, but as much in line with with just ior: consistent conspiracy, business strategy a wide swath of rational and competitive common market. unilaterally perceptions prompted g., See, e. Joint Stud- AEI-Brookings Regulatory Center Motions to Dismiss Antitrust Cases: ies, Separating Epstein, (2006) 06-08, 3-4 from Publication Fantasy, pp. Fact Related suits). § in 1 Accord- “false (discussing positives” problem false inferences hedged against we have previously ingly, in the trial number of from identical behavior at a points evidence with An antitrust conspiracy plaintiff sequence. conduct not entitled to nothing beyond showing parallel supra; Enterprises, see Theatre verdict, proof directed to exclude tending must evidence include conspiracy Co. Monsanto action, see the possibility independent Spray-Rite Corp., at the (1984); and Service 465 U. S. 752 offer of conspiracy §a 1 summary judgment stage plaintiff’s de- must tend to rule out possibility evidence Elec. Matsushita see were acting independently, fendants Corp., (1986). v. Zenith Radio Industrial Co. S. 475 U. B what a plain- question This case the antecedent presents §1 of the under to state a claim tiff must order plead *10 555 8(a)(2) Act. of Federal Rule Civil Sherman Procedure re “a short and only statement of the claim show plain quires relief,” is entitled to in order to pleader ing “give fair defendant notice what of . . . claim is and the Conley Gibson, it rests,” 41, which v. grounds upon 355 U. S. (1957). 12(b)(6) 47 While a attacked a Rule complaint motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, Sanjuan ibid.; Psychiatry v. American 13d. and Neurol of ogy, Inc., (CA7 247, 251 40 F. 3d a 1994), plaintiff’s obligation his of to relief” provide “grounds” re “entitle[ment] more conclusions, than labels and and a quires formulaic reci tation of the elements of a of action do, cause will not see Papasan Allain, (1986) (on v. 265, 478 U. S. 286 a motion dismiss, courts “are not bound to as true a con accept legal clusion couched as a factual Factual allegation”). allega tions must be to raise a above enough relief right level, see 5 C. speculative & A. Miller, Federal Prac Wright (3d tice 1216, 2004) (herein § and Procedure 235-236 ed. pp. Miller) (“[T]he

after & Wright must contain some pleading more . . . than ... a of thing statement facts that merely a creates a suspicion action”),3 [of] of legally cognizable right on the that all the in the assumption complaint g., (even e. Swierkiewicz are true if fact), see, doubtful v. 3The greatly dissent oversimplifies matters by suggesting that the Fed eral Rules dispensed somehow with the altogether. facts See J.) post, Stevens, (opinion at 580 (pleading standard of Federal Rules facts”). invite, “does require, While, not the pleading even for most cases, types the Federal Rules eliminated the requirement cumbersome claimant “set out in detail the facts upon a claim,” which he his bases Conley Gibson, (1957) 8(a)(2) 41, added), S. (emphasis 355 U. 47 Rule requires assertion, still a “showing,” rather than a blanket of entitlement to relief. allegation Without some factual complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant satisfy requirement only could not providing claim, ‘Tair “grounds” notice” of the nature of also but on which the (Rule 8(a) 94, § See Wright claim rests. & Miller “contem circumstances, occurrences, plate[s] the statement of in support and events of the claim presented” pleader’s “bare averment does not authorize it”). that he wants relief and entitled to is A, (2002);

Sorema N. U. S. n. Wil Neitzke v. (“Rule (1989) 12(b)(6) liams, 319, 327 490 U. S. does coun tenance ... dismissals based on disbelief com judge’s v. Rhodes, factual Scheuer plaint’s allegations”); (1974) (a 232, 236 even well-pleaded may complaint proceed if it “that a remote and very appears recovery unlikely”).

In these standards to a claim, we hold general applying a claim such with stating requires enough (taken true) factual that an matter suggest agreement *11 was for to infer made. Asking plausible grounds agree- a ment does not at the impose probability requirement plead- calls for it fact to raise a reasonable ing simply stage; enough that will reveal discovery evidence expectation of illegal And, of course, a agreement.4 well-pleaded may it a even if strikes proceed that actual of savvy judge proof the facts a is and “that is improbable, alleged recovery very remote and Ibid. In unlikely.” facts that are identifying § to render 1a suggestive we enough conspiracy plausible, have of the the benefit and views of considered prior rulings commentators, that lawful leading parallel already quoted, conduct fails to unlawful bespeak It makes agreement. therefore, sense to that an of conduct say, allegation parallel and a bare assertion of will not suffice. Without conspiracy examples Commentators have offered of alle parallel several conduct g., e. See, gations § that state a would claim under this standard. Areeda & Hovenkamp (discussing “parallel ¶ behavior 167-185 chance, coincidence, that would re probably not result from independent stimuli, sponses interdependence an ad common mere unaided Blechman, vance understanding among parties”); Conscious Parallel ism, The Signalling Facilitating and Problem of Tacit Collusion Devices: (1979) Laws, 881,899 (describing Under the Antitrust Rev. N. Y. L. S. L. “conduct indicates the freedom of action and sense [that] sort of restricted of obligation parties that one with generally agreement”). associates historically this agree “complex unprecedented changes case that by multiple competitors, time pricing very structure made at the same reason,” and made for would a infer support plausible no other discernible 37; ence for see also Brief for conspiracy. Respondents Reply Brief Petitioners 12.

more, a conduct does not suggest parallel conspiracy, at some unidentified conclusory allegation agreement does not facts to show point supply adequate illegality.

Hence, when conduct are set out parallel in context claim, § in order make a 1 must be a they placed raises a preceding agreement, suggestion that could as well be merely parallel independ- conduct just ent action.

The need at the stage allegations plausibly (not with) consistent reflects merely suggesting agreement 8(a)(2) the threshold of Rule requirement “plain statement” heft to possess enough pleader “sho[w] A conduct, is entitled relief.” statement of even parallel conduct some undertaken, needs consciously suggest setting claim; § to make out a 1 ing agreement necessary without further circumstance toward a of the meeting pointing minds, an account of defendant’s commercial efforts stays in neutral An conduct territory. allegation parallel thus much like a naked assertion of com conspiracy it close to gets claim, but with plaint: eomplaint stating out some further factual enhancement short stops line between possibility plausibility “entitle[ment] *12 College Research, DM Cf. Inc. Patholo Am. relief.” v. gists, (CA1 1999) 53, (“[T]erms 170 F. 3d 56 like ‘conspiracy,’ are or even ‘agreement,’ border-line: well be suf they might ficient in with a more ex conjunction specific allegation —for a written or even a basis for ample, identifying agreement a tacit . . but a court is not inferring agreement,. required to such terms as a sufficient basis a accept complaint”).5

We alluded to 8 enti- of the Rule practical significance Inc. Pharmaceuticals, Dura in tlement v. requirement Broudo, 544 (2005), U. 336 when that some- S. we explained the mere loss must be beyond causation possibility thing 5 The border in DM Research conclusory between the was the line factually factually Here it neutral and the the factual. lies between the liability. Each must to realm of plausible be crossed enter the suggestive.

558 “ ” lest with ‘a claim’ be

alleged, plaintiff groundless largely “ allowed ‘take time of a number other up people, an terrorem with the do so incre representing right Id., Blue ment of 347 the settlement value.’” at (quoting Chip Stamps Drug Stores, 421 Manor U. v. S. 741 723, (1975)). So, in a when however complaint, “ true, could raise claim of to relief, entitlement ‘this basic ... be at the should of mini deficiency point exposed mum of time and money by parties and the expenditure §1216, court.’” & Miller at 233-234 Wright (quoting Dredging Co., Daves v. Hawaiian (Haw. 643, 645 114 F. Supp. supra, Dura, Asahi Glass Co. v. Pen 1953)); 346; see also Pharmaceuticals, Inc., tech (ND 2d 289 F. Ill. Supp. 2003) (“[S]ome (Posner, J., threshold sitting designation) must be crossed at the outset before a plausibility patent ease should antitrust be into its permitted go inevitably costly protracted discovery phase”).

Thus, it is one to be cautious before thing dismissing cf. Poller v. Co antitrust in advance of discovery, Broadcasting System, lumbia Inc., (1962), U. S. but another to antitrust dis quite forget proceeding can we indicated covery As over 20 expensive. years ago Carpenters, Cal., Associated Gen. Inc. Contractors v. 519, 528, (1983), 459 U. n. 17 court retain S. “a district must to insist some before power upon specificity massive factual allowing potentially controversy pro Carriers, Co., Ford Car Inc. Motor ceed.” See also (CA7 1984) (“[T]he F. 2d costs of modern federal antitrust and the of the federal litigation caseload increasing courts counsel into against discovery sending parties when there is no can reasonable likelihood that plaintiffs from construct claim the events related in the complaint”); Note, on the Effect of Fee Dis Modeling One-Way Shifting Abuse in Private Antitrust 78 N. Y. U. L. covery Litigation, *13 (2003) Rev. 1887, 1898-1899 unusually high (discussing cost for cases); of in Manual Lit- antitrust discovery Complex (2004) Fourth, 30,§ scope extensive igation, p. (describing cases); of in Paul discovery antitrust Memorandum from V. Chair, Committee on Niemeyer, Advisory Rules, Civil Scirica, Chair, of Anthony Hon. J. Committee on Rules Prac- (2000) tice Procedure D. (May 11,1999), 354,357 F. R. that accounts for much as 90 discovery as (reporting percent of actively costs when is litigation discovery employed). is obvious in the case: present

That potential expense enough at least 90 class of plaintiffs represent putative percent all local Internet subscribers telephone high-speed States, service in the continental United an action against (with firms America’s telecommunications thou- largest many of busi- generating gigabytes sands reams employees records) (if ness instances of antitrust any) unspecified that over violations occurred seven allegedly period years.

It no is answer that claim say just plausible shy can, entitlement to relief if be weeded out early groundless, case “careful discovery process through management,” at lament the success of the common post, given abuse has been judicial discovery supervision checking Easterbrook, on the modest See, Discovery side. e.g., (1989) little Abuse, 69 B. can do (“Judges U. L. Rev. when control discovery parties legal about impositional them- discovery claims to be and conduct presented selves”). of discov- And it is self-evident problem “careful of evidence scrutiny abuse cannot be solved ery instruc- much less “lucid at the summary judgment stage,” 573; discovery expense tions to the threat juries,” post, anemic to settle even will cost-conscious defendants push then, Probably, cases before those reaching proceedings. that reach care to only require allegations by taking to avoid the we can hope

level conspiracy suggesting with no in cases discovery expense enormous potentially “ will [discovery] process founded ‘reasonably hope Dura, §1a claim. support relevant evidence’” to reveal *14 Stamps, Chip supra, Blue at 347 S., 544 U. 741; (quoting at Dura).6 alteration not, course,

Plaintiffs do the requirement dispute the need and for more than plausibility something merely Enterprises, in Theatre Mon- parallel behavior explained santo, Matsushita, main and their argument the against at the is standard its plausibility stage ostensible plaintiffs’ The dissent takes heart in the reassurances of counsel that discovery ‘““phased””’ the would and “limited to existence of the al Post, leged conspiracy and class certification.” at 593. But determining may illegal agreement place whether some have taken between unspeci (each persons corporation fied dollar different ILECs a multibillion with legions employees) point management years level at some over seven sprawling, costly, hugely time-consuming undertaking easily is and. not susceptible drawing management to the kind of line and case that the Perhaps optimism dissent envisions. the best answer to the dissent’s discovery judicial open antitrust is to effective control is a more extensive quotation cited, authority just of the judge background with a in anti have, system hope trust law. Given judicial we of effective supervision is slim: (the plaintiff sketchy complaint

“The is all timing wrong. The files discourage documents), discovery Rules of Civil Procedure fulsome is judicial launched. A not officer does know the details of the case parties theory will present Discovery and in cannot know details. used judicial always to find details. than The officer knows less parties, may they parties very and the not know where themselves well going they expect supervising are what to find. A discov- magistrate ery request, expected productivity given does not—cannot—know of a requester’s because the nature of of the files claim and the contents (or head) of the party are officers cannot adverse unknown. Judicial impo- measure the costs requester and benefits to the and so cannot isolate requests. Requesters sitional have no to disclose their own esti- reason (and they gain may mates lose from imposing because from costs on rivals improvement Rules of Civil accuracy). portions Proce- demands, therefore, calling judges dure on back have trim excessive been, be, are what prevent doomed to hollow. We cannot we cannot detect; define; we cannot cannot define detect what we cannot we ‘abusive’ discovery except in lack essential theory, practice because in we informa- Easterbrook, Abuse, Discovery tion.” L. Rev. 69 B. U. 638-639 (1989)(footnote omitted). with an conflict statement of ours Rule 8. early construing Conley Gibson Justice Black’s for the Court opinion of the need for fair only notice of spoke grounds entitlement relief but of “the rule that a com- accepted should not be dismissed for failure to state a plaint claim unless it doubt can appears beyond plaintiff prove no set of facts in of his claim which would entitle support *15 him to relief.” S., 355 U. at 45-46. “no set of This facts” can be read isolation as language state- saying ment of the claim will revealing theory suffice unless factual its be shown from the face of the impossibility may and the Court of pleadings; have read Appeals appears Conley in some such when its way understand- formulating ing standard, 425 proper pleading 3d, see F. at 114 (invoking “no set of facts” Conley’s describ- language dismissal).7 the standard for ing Conley’s such a

On focused and literal of “no set reading facts,” of of wholly statement claim would sur- conclusory vive a motion to dismiss whenever left pleadings open that a later establish possibility plaintiff some “set might facts” to here, [undisclosed] recovery. So support Court Appeals found the of unearth- specifically prospect direct evidence of ing sufficient dis- conspiracy preclude missal, even does not set forth a though single 7The Court of Appeals Judge also relied on Chief suggestion Clark’s Nagler Corp., (CA2 Admiral 1957), v. 248 F. 2d 319 that facts indicating parallel 3d, conduct alone suffice to state a under 1. 114 claim 425 F. at (citing Nagler, supra, 325). Nagler gave at But no explanation for citing (which Theatre Enterprises upheld a plain denial of a directed verdict for on the ground proof tiff of parallelism proof conspiracy) was not as authority parallel that pleading plead conduct sufficed to a Sherman Act v. Spray-Rite Monsanto Co. Service Corp., 465 conspiracy. Now v. Zenith Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Radio (1984), U. S. 752 Corp., 475 U. S. 574 (1986), parallel have made it clear that neither conduct alone, necessary implication nor conscious parallelism, taken raise the conspiracy, pleading it is time when adequacy for a fresh look at a claim on parallel rests action. suggests agreement. in a

fact context at 3d, F. say approach pleading 106,114. It seems fair to that this “ any showing dispense ‘reasonably would with of a founded hope’” plaintiff that a would able to make a see case, (quoting Chip Stamps, Dura, 544 U. at 347 Blue S., S., 421 U. 741); optimism enough. at Mr. Micawber’s would be many

Seeing good judges this, a and commentators have Conley taking literal passage balked at terms g., Carriers, e. See, standard. Car 2d, 745 F. (“Conley interpreted literally” “[i]n has never been and, practice, complaint... must contain either direct or infer allegations respecting ential all the material elements nec essary recovery legal theory” to sustain under some viable (internal quotation emphasis omitted; marks and omission in original)); Properties, Co., Ascon Inc. Mobil Oil F. 2d (CA9 1989) (tension Conley’s 1149, 1155 between “no set of acknowledgment language plaintiff facts” and its that a must provide rests); “grounds” on which his claim O’Brien v. (CA1 1976) (“[W]hen DiGrazia, 2d F. n. plaintiff *16 supplies support . . claim, . facts to his we do not Conley imposes duty conjure think that on the courts up unpleaded might facts that turn a frivolous claim of un one”); McGregor constitutional action . . . into a substantial (CA6 v. Industrial Inc., 39,42-43 Excess F. 2d Landfill, 856 1988) (quoting analysis); Hazard, O’Brien’s From Whom No (1998)(describ Hid, Are 1665, 1685 Secrets 76 Texas L. Rev. ing Conley head”); having as “turned Rule on its Marcus, 8 Pleading The Revival of Fact the Federal Rules of Under (not (1986) Procedure, Civil 86 433, Colum. Rev. L. 463-465 ing Conley subsequent understandings tension between 8). of Rule go pile up on,

We could but there is no need further Conley’s language citations to show that “no set of facts” has questioned, away enough. explained long been criticized, and Conley passage To be Court, fair to the should be under- light summary opinion’spreceding stood in the com-

563 concrete which the allegations, Court plaint’s reason- quite understood as a claim for ably amply relief. But the stating so often fails to mention passage quoted this understanding Court, on the and after part for puzzling profession 50 this famous observation has years, earned its retirement. is best as an phrase forgotten incomplete, negative gloss

on an standard: once accepted a claim has been stated adequately, set of may supported by showing facts consistent with the in the See complaint. Sanjuan, (once 40 3d, F. at 251 a claim for relief has been stated, a plaintiff “receives the benefit of so imagination, long as the are consistent with the hypotheses ac- complaint”); Organization Swierkiewicz, 534 cord, National S., 514; U. Women, Inc. Scheidler, H. J. v. 510 U. S. 249, (1994); 256 Telephone

Inc. v. Co., Northwestern Bell 229, U. 249- S. King Spalding, (1989); Hishon v. & U. S. (1984). Conley, then, described the breadth of opportunity what an prove claims, not the adequate complaint mini- mum standard of adequate pleading govern complaint’s survival.8 Conleyfe

8 Because ‘“no set of facts’” language was one of our earliest statements about pleading under the Rules, Federal it is no surprise that it has since been “cited Post, authority” by this Court and others. at 577. not Although we have previously explained the circumstances and rejected the literal reading the passage embraced Ap Court of peals, analysis our comports with this years Court’s statements in the Pharmaceuticals, Conley. Broudo, Dura since See Inc. 544 U. S. “ (2005) (requiring ‘reasonably hope [discovery] proc founded that the ” ess will reveal Chip Blue support relevant evidence’ (quoting the claim Stores, Stamps v. Manor Drug (1975); 421 U. S. alteration in Dura)); Cal., Associated Gen. Inc. v. Carpenters, Contractors (1983) (“It 519, 526 not . . . proper to assume that plaintiff] [the can prove facts it has alleged or that the defendants violated have *17 Wilson v. ways the antitrust Schnet laws that have not been alleged”); tler, (“In (1961) 381, allegation 383 the absence of... [that the not, arrest was made probable cause] without could courts below we, nor can assume that respondents petitioner probable arrested without offense”). cause to believe he ... a had committed narcotics Nor are

564

III When we for in this look we plausibility complaint, agree of with District Court claim plaintiffs’ conspiracy To with, restraint of trade comes short. the com- up begin rest their leaves no doubt on plaint claim plaintiffs and not on any of conduct descriptions parallel independent of actual agreement ILECs. Supra, allegation among few at 550-551. in form a statements Although stray speak on fair these are directly agreement,9 reading merely legal on the Thus, conclusions the com- prior allegations. resting reaching we out to decide this in a case matter issue where the was post, 579, raised see both parties, since the ILECs and the Gov- problems ernment from highlight stemming interpretation a literal Conley’s language “no set of and seek facts” clarification the standard. 27-28; for Brief Petitioners Brief United States as Amicus Curiae 22-25; see also Brief for Respondents (describing “[p]etitioners and standard”). Conley’s their mounting amici”as an “attack on facts’ ‘noset of The dissent of Appeals precedents finds relevance Court from 1940s, gave which Conley's to “no allegedly language. rise set facts” post, See at 580-583. Even this line of indulging analysis, these cases do that, not challenge understanding proceeding discovery, before to a See, e.g., allege suggestive must facts conduct. illegal Worcester, Mass., Leimer State Co. 2d Mut. Assurance 108 F. Life (CA8 1940)(“ ‘[I]f, alleged, reasonably in view of what can it trial, could, conceived plaintiffs upon ... a case which establish relief, . would entitle them . . to the motion to should not have dismiss ”); Collieries, Shober, been granted’ Continental Inc. v. 130 F. 2d (CA3 (“No 1942) may how likely pleader matter it seem that will be case, prove entitled, claim, upon unable his he is to an averring oppor- it”). tunity try prove Rather, unobjection- these cases for the stand claim, that, may able proposition complaint adequately when a states plaintiff not be dismissed on a that the based district court's assessment evidentiary prove will fail find for his his claim support Rhodes, to the satisfaction of the 416 U. factfinder. Cf. Scheuer v. S. (1974)(a district a motion asks “not weighing court to dismiss whether ultimately will plaintiff prevail but whether claimant is entitled claims”). offer evidence to support the 51, 64, 27,30-31 Complaint App. See that ILECs (alleging engaged ¶¶ “contract, in a not to conspiracy” agreed compete combination or with another). one

565 first takes of account the plaint alleged “absence of between meaningful competition in anoth- [the one ILECs] markets,” er’s of “the course parallel conduct each in engaged [ILEC] to prevent competition CLECs,” from the “and other facts market and circumstances alleged [ear- “in lier]”; of” these, the light concludes “that complaint [the have ILECs] entered into a contract, combination or conspir- to prevent into their . . acy competitive entry . markets and have agreed not to with one compete another.” Complaint ¶51, 27.10 The nub App. of the complaint, then, is the ILECs’ parallel behavior, to consisting steps keep out CLECs and manifest disinterest CLECs becoming themselves, and its turns on the sufficiency suggestions raised this conduct when viewed common eco- light nomic experience.11 complaint If explained had not the claim agreement parallel described, on the

rested conduct we complaint’s doubt that the an agreement among references to the ILECs would have given notice required by Apart Rule 7-year 8. identifying span from in which the (1 § e., supposed violations were to have occurred at “[beginning least id., early February 6, 1996, as continuing present,” to the ¶ App. 30), pleadings specific time, place, person mentioned no in or alleged conspiracies. volved in the lack of notice sharply This contrasts with form pleading negligence, the model Form which the dissent says exemplifies allegation” the kind “bare that survives a motion to Post, alleges dismiss. at 576. Whereas model form that the defend plaintiff plaintiff crossing particu ant struck with his car while was time, highway specified complaint lar date here furnishes no (much employees) to which clue as of the four ILECs less which of their agreed, agreement supposedly place. or when and where illicit took pattern wishing prepare simple A defendant in the fact answer laid answer; seeking in Form 9 to respond out would know what to a defendant plaintiffs’ conelusory allegations in the context would have little idea begin. where quotations complaint impression The dissent’s from the leave the fact, directly they plaintiffs allege illegal agreement; proceed exclu conduct, sively parallel via Court as both District (SDNY 174, 182 2003); Appeals Supp. 2d recognized. Court See 313 F. (CA2 2005). 99, 102-104 F. 3d nothing We think contained in the invests alleged plausible either the action inaction with a sugges- conspiracy. supposed agreement tion of to the As ILECs’ disobey attempts 1996 Act and thwart the CLECs’ *19 compete, agree nothing we with the District Court that in complaint upstarts the intimates that to the resistance the anything was natural, than unilateral more the reaction of keeping regional each intent on ILEC its dominance. The subject just 1996 did competi- Act more than the ILECs to obliged competitors tion; it them to subsidize their with their equipment own at wholesale rates. The economic incentive powerful, resisting competition to resist was but is routine market conduct, even if the ILECs flouted the 1996 Act ways plaintiffs allege, ¶ in all App. id., 47, see 23-24, there companies is no agreed reason to infer that the had among only anyway; themselves to do what was natural so natural, alleging parallel in that if fact, decisions resist competition enough imply were conspiracy, an antitrust against group 1 violation compet- almost ing thing. businesses be a would sure pass predicate makes closest its at a conspiracy with the necessary claim that collusion was be- by cause territory success even one CLEG in an ILEC’s degree “would have competitive entry revealed the to which by would CLECs have been successful in the other territo- ¶ App. Id., 50, ries.” logic gen- But, 26-27. its aside, this premise eral still point fails to answer the that there was just joint encouragement no need for to resist the Act; 1996 as the District Court said, “each ILEC has reason to want dealing to avoid with CLECs” and “each ILEC would at- tempt keep regardless out, CLECs of the actions of the other Supp. ILECs.” 313 F. 184; cf. 2d, Kramer v. (SONY Supp. Foundation, Pollock-Krasner F. 1995) (while plaintiff “may believe defendants conspired conspiratorial allegedly , ... the defendants’ ac- lawful, could prompted tions have been equally independ- which do ent not constitute goals conspiracy”).12 second Plaintiffs’ on theory rests conspiracy competi- reticence tive the ILECs themselves wake of among Act, which supposedly was passed “‘hop[e] large that the incumbent local monopoly ... companies might areas, their are attack neighbors’ they service the best to do ¶38, situated so.’” Complaint Con- App. (quoting America, sumer Federation of Lessons from 1996 Telecom- munications Act: Before Deregulation Meaningful Competi- (Feb. 2000)). Disaster, tion Consumer Spells p. Contrary “ ‘to other’s ILECs declined enter each ” service hope, territories any significant way,’ Complaint App. ¶ local and the market re- Internet telephone high-speed mains with highly mini- compartmentalized geographically, affairs, mal Based on this competition. state perceiv- with ILECs be blessed attractive ing “especially *20 business opportunities” markets dominated surrounding ILECs, other the assert that the by plaintiffs ILECs’ paral- Id., lel conduct was suggestive conspiracy.” “strongly 40, 21. App. ¶ it

But was not if not suggestive conspiracy, history teaches In a anything. traditionally unregulated industry with low barriers to entry, sparse competition among large firms segments dominating separate geographical market could well but here signify very illegal agreement, In the we have obvious alternative decade explanation. allegation belong the trade associa From that the ILECs to various 23, Complaint 46, suggests they tions, App. playfully the that ¶ see dissent trade, by to be the conspired to restrain an inference said “buttressed Post, If 594. Adam Smith is common sense Adam Smith.” tongue-in-cheek surprised today, may down he to learn that his peering be to authority pinmaker his devote finan would be force famous remark lawyers, prepare depositions, and other capital human hire cial and just belonged to conspiracy; he off all this because wise fend pins competitors when carried the guild trade one their of his same tag. price same

preceding monopoly that, the 1996 Act well before was exception. telecommunications, the norm in not the See FCC, 467, 477-478 Verizon Communications Inc. v. U. S. (2002) providers (describing telephone service as traditional public monopolies). were born in that world, The ILECs way surely was, it doubtless liked the world knew adage Hence, him about who lives the sword. a natu explanation noncompetition alleged ral for the is that the for monopolists sitting tight, mer were Government-sanctioned tp expecting neighbors thing. do the same their complaint gives In itself fact, the reasons to believe that keeping the ILECs would see their best interests in to their Although says complaint generally turf. old passed up “especially opportuni- ILECs attractive business ties]” by compete declining against as CLECs other Complaint App. allege ¶ ILECs, 21, it does that com- any petition potentially as CLECs was more lucrative than opportunities being pursued by during other the ILECs period,13 replete same and the with indications nearly CLEC faced insurmountable barriers to profitability owing flagrant to the ILECs’ resistance to the sharing requirements ¶ network App. id., Act, the 1996 CEO, The complaint quoted a reported statement of Qwest’s Richard Notebaert, ILECs suggest declined to compete against each “ despite ‘might other recognizing good way turn quick ¶42, Tribune, dollar.’” App. (quoting 31, 2002, Chicago Oct. Business 1). Section, p. said, however, only part This was he reportedly what District was Court entitled to take notice of contents of the full published complaint, articles referenced in the from which truncated quotations were drawn. Rule 201. See Fed. Evid.

Notebaert quoted saying was also entering as new markets aas CLEC would not be “a sustainable economic model” CLEC because Tribune, pricing “just... model Chicago 31,2002, nuts.” Oct. Business (cited Section, 22). 42, p. 1 at Complaint App. ¶ Another source cited in complaint quotes thought as saying Notebaert he it “unwise” “base a plan” business privileges on accorded to CLECs under Act Tribune, because regulatory Chicago was unstable. environment too (cited 23). 19, 45, 2002, Dec. Section, Business 2p. Complaint App. ¶ at only monopolistic 23-26. Not without that, but even tradi- peculiar difficulty mandating and the tion shared net- “[f]irms expand works, do without not limit and none of them every enters might regard market that an outside observer profitable, portion or even a small of such markets.” 2006) (comment- ¶ Hovenkamp (Supp. Areeda 307d, & at 155 bar). ing upshot Congress may on the at case is that expected legacy have some ILECs become CLECs disappointment territories other ILECs, but the does not conspiracy plausible. agree make We with the District conspiracy sug- Court’s assessment that antitrust was not gested theory the facts adduced under either of the com- plaint, which thus fails to state a 1 claim.14 valid say analysis Plaintiffs that our runs counter to Swierkie- complaint wicz, S., at 508, U. which held “a in an employment [need] spe- discrimination lawsuit not contain establishing prima cific facts facie case of discrimination Douglas under the Corp. framework set forth in McDonnell (1973).” They argue just Green, v. 411 U. S. 792 as the prima evidentiary facie case is a “flexible standard” that transposed rigid pleading “should not be into a standard for supra, discrimination cases,” Swierkiewicz, “trans- posting] 'plus summary judgment analysis woodenly factor’ 12(b)(6) rigid pleading into a Rule standard . . . would be Respondents unwise,” Brief for 39. As the District Court conclusion, In this reaching we do apply “heightened” standard, do nor we seek to scope broaden the Federal Rule of Civil “ only accomplished ‘by Procedure which can the process amending Rules, Swierkiewicz v. the Federal by judicial and not interpretation.’” N. (2002) Sorema A, (quoting Leathermcm Tarrant Unit, County Intelligence Narcotics Coordination 163, 168 U. S. (1993)). subjects high On certain understood to raise risk of abusive litigation, plaintiff must state allegations greater particular factual with 9(b)-(c). ity Here, requires. than Rule 8 Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. our con is not complaint insufficiently “partic cern that the were ibid.; rather, ularized],” dismissal because it warranted failed in toto relief plaintiffs’ plausible. to render entitlement *22 understood, “Swierkiewicz

correctly did however, change not the law of but pleading, re-emphasized . . . simply use of Second Circuit’s for heightened standard VII Federal Title cases was Rules’ to contrary structure of liberal 313 F. pleading requirements.” Supp. 2d, at (citation omitted). and footnote Even though Swierkiewicz’s to his “detailed events pleadings leading termination, relevant and dates, included provided ages nationali- ties of at least some of the relevant persons involved with termination,” his the Court of Appeals dismissed his com- certain additional plaint allege facts that failing Swier- kiewicz need at the trial his support would claim in stage Swierkie- the absence direct evidence of discrimination. wicz, at 514. reversed on S., ground U. We Court of had what applied amounted Appeals impermissibly to a heightened pleading requirement by insisting Swierkiewicz facts” those allege “specific beyond necessary his claim entitlement state grounds showing Id., relief. at 508. fact

Here, contrast, we do not plead- require heightened but facts to state a claim to relief ing specifics, only enough that is on its face. Because the here have plaintiffs plausible their claims the line conceivable to across from nudged plausible, their must dismissed.

[*] ^[*] ^[*] Cir- for the Appeals Court of Second judgment further pro- cuit is remanded for reversed, the case consistent with this opinion. ceedings

It is so ordered. Ginsburg joins with whom Justice Stevens, Justice IV, as to Part except dissenting. the Court

In 23-page the first of its opinion paragraph is whether states that the to be decided question in certain engaged telecommunications “major providers conduct unfavorable parallel competition” suffice to state Ante, § of 1 violation Act. Sherman 548-549. The *23 to that has answer been settled more than 50 question If that were indeed the issue, a years. summary reversal Enterprises, Theatre Inc. v. Paramount Film Distrib- citing uting Corp., (1954), U. S. 537 would adequately resolve Enterprises Theatre this case. As held, conduct parallel is circumstantial evidence admissible on the issue conspiracy, Id., but is not it itself illegal. 540-542.

Thus, this is a there case which is dispute no about the substantive law. If the defendants acted independently, their conduct however, was lawful. If, that con- perfectly is duct the product of a horizontal agreement among poten- tial it competitors, was unlawful. The have plaintiffs al- such and, leged agreement because the complaint was in advance answer, dismissed has not allegation even then, been denied. does the Why, case not Does proceed? a that judicial opinion charge “plausible” provide a reason for acceptable I legally complaint? dismissing think not.

Respondents’ complaint amended describes a variety circumstantial evidence and makes the alle- straightforward that petitioners gation contract,

“entered into a combination or conspiracy in their local tele- prevent competitive entry respective and/or internet services markets phone high speed have not to with one another and other- compete agreed allocated and markets to one another.” wise customers (GEL) Amended No. 02 CIV. Complaint (SDNY) (hereinafter App. Complaint). ¶ that, Congress’ explains expecta- contrary Act, and it tion when enacted the 1996 Telecommunications self-interests, petitioner consistent with their own economic (ILECs) have assidu- Local Incumbent Carriers Exchange and have avoided each other’s markets upon ously infringing permit competitors refused nonincumbent access their complaint quotes networks. The Richard Notebaert, saying chief officer such ILEC, former executive of one as “ neighboring territory competing ‘might in a ILEC’s way good quick dollar but doesn’t to turn make respondents right.’” App. allege Moreover, Id., ¶42, 22. petitioners amongst through “communicate themselves” industry App. ¶ 46, Id., sum, numerous associations. 23. In respondents petitioners allege agree- entered into an recognized per long ment that been classic se has viola- Attorney Report tion of the Sherman Act. See Gen- Study eral’s National (1955). Antitrust Laws 26 Committee procedure Under that have well rules of been settled since Enterprises, judge well our before decision in Theatre rul- *24 ing on a motion to defendant’s dismiss a “must accept allegations all of true the factual contained in the complaint.” A.,N. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 534 U. S. (2002); Corp., 508, n. 1 see Overstreet v. North Shore (1943). requiring knowledgeable 125,127 But instead of ex- respond ecutives such as Notebaert to these by way depositions discovery of sworn or other limited —and requiring petitioners indeed without so much as to file an they any denying agreement answer that entered into —the majority permits on immediate dismissal based the assur- lawyers company nothing ances of that untoward was afoot. lawyers argument The Court embraces the that of those companies agreed “there is no reason infer that the had among anyway,” only themselves to do what was natural just joint encourage- ante, 566; at that “there was no need for ibid.; ment to resist the Act,” the “natural explanation noncompetition alleged for the is that the former tight, monopolists sitting Government-sanctioned ex- were pecting thing,” neighbors ante, their to do the same at 568. petitioners’ legal

The Court and team are no doubt correct parallel alleged with the that the conduct is consistent ab- of combination, sence contract, But conspiracy. conduct is also consistent with entirely of the presence illegal agreement alleged And the complaint. charge that petitioners not to with one “agreed compete another” is one of “a just ante, few stray statements,” 564; it is an unlawful allegation describing such, conduct. As Federal Procedure, Rules our Civil longstanding prece- dent, sound practice mandate that the District Court at least some sort require from response before petitioners the case. dismissing

Two concerns practical Court’s presumably explain dramatic departure from settled procedural law. Private antitrust can be litigation and there enormously expensive, is a risk that jurors may mistakenly conclude that evidence conduct has parallel that the proved acted parties pursu- ant to an when in fact agreement they made similar merely independent decisions. Those concerns merit careful case management, strict control of including careful discovery, of evidence at the scrutiny summary stage, judgment lucid instructions to juries; not, however, do they justify dismissal an without even adequately pleaded complaint to file requiring defendants answers denying charge they fact in collective engaged decisionmaking. More do not importantly, they justify interpretation 12(b)(6) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure seems to be driven majority’s of the appraisal plausibility factual rather than *25 ultimate its allegation legal sufficiency.

I 8(a)(2) Rule Rules that a Federal requires “a short and statement of the claim showing contain plain The did not come that the is entitled to relief.” Rule pleader its is not inadvertent. about and by happenstance, language with Byzantine special pleading The English experience rules of Hilary by hypertechnical rules —illustrated a standard pleading obvious 18341—made the appeal and to understand sufficed for the was common easy litigant the nature of the as to claim on notice the defendant put Stateside, David Dudley him and relief sought. against New York Code influential Field developed highly of the facts constituting statement 1848, which “[a] required concise without action, language, cause of in ordinary enable person manner in such a repetition, what is intended.” An Act to know common understanding Practice, and Pro- Pleadings and Abridge Simplify State, 379, 120(2), of this ch. of the Courts ceedings similar Substantially language ap- N. Y. Laws 521. pp. in 1912. Rules See in the Equity adopted Federal peared state- “a short simple Rule 25 Fed. (requiring Equity which the asks re- facts ment of the ultimate upon plaintiff evidence”). lief, mere statement omitting however, in that the Field Code and arose, A difficulty rather “facts” than its to plead progeny required plaintiff far than easier to “conclusions,” say distinction proved noted, As commentators have apply. “it is virtually logically distinguish among impossible Essen- facts,’ ‘evidence,’ ‘ultimate and ‘conclusions.’ must an assertion allegation tially any pleading that certain occurrences took spec- place. ultimate facts to trum, from evidence passing through is in the conclusions, a continuum only largely varying are with which occurrences degree particularity on Distler, Comments Pro- described.” Weinstein & Rules, 57 Colum. cedural Reform: Drafting Pleading (1957). L. 520-521 Rev. Cook, Under

See also Statements of Fact Pleading (1921) (hereinafter Cook) 416, Codes, 21 Colum. L. Rev. (“[T]here no distinction between statements which logical are under the ‘statements of courts phrases grouped (1926). Holdsworth, 324-327 History Law English See W.

575 ”). law’ Rule 8 was respon- directly and ‘conclusions fact’ avoided Its drafters intentionally to this difficulty. sive or “conclusions.” See to or “evidence” reference “facts” Practice and Procedure Miller, Federal & A. Wright C. Miller) (3d 2004) (hereinafter &

§1216, Wright ed. p. is enti- (“The that the substitution of ‘claim showing pleader of the ‘facts’ constitut- for the code formulation tled relief’ the distinctions action’ was intended avoid a ‘cause of ing facts,’ ‘ultimate ‘evidentiary drawn under codes among ”). facts,’ ‘conclusions’... the Federal the relaxed standards

Under pleading out court but was Rules, the idea keep litigants would be The of a claim rather them in. merits keep and, out flexible appro- sorted during pretrial process Swierkiewicz, the crucible of trial. See priate, through 8(a) (“The is notice of Rule S., at 514 liberal U. which system, of a simplified pleading starting point claim”). of a on the merits was to focus litigation adopted Clark, of the Federal draftsman” Charles E. “principal it thus: Rules,2 put has that we cannot shown ... expect

“Experience case be made through pleadings, proof can ex- not their function. We that such proof really all the case from statement distinguishing pect general of trial and remedy that the manner and form others, so so clear, are permanent judgment expected Proce- The Rules of Civil New Federal will result.” Embod- Last Philosophy dure: The Underlying Phase — New Proce- Provisions of the ied in of the Basic Some (1937) (hereinafter Clark, A. dure, 23 A. B. J. Rules).

New Federal Rules was the new Federal under pleading paradigm Form the inclusion the appendix well illustrated by 271, 283 Corp., Mayacamas Aerospace Corp. Gulfstream (1988). *27 complaint negligence. relevant, for

a As Form com 9 only: plaint public 1936, states “On a highway 1, June Boylston Boston, Massachusetts, called Street in defendant plaintiff negligently against a drove motor vehicle who was highway.” Complaint crossing Negli then said Form for gence, App., Proc., App., Rules 28 S. Forms Fed. Civ. U. C. (hereinafter 9). complaint p. 829 Form The then describes plaintiff’s injuries judgment. demands The as namely, ground negligent serted for the defendant’s relief— driving been called a of have “‘conclusion law’” —would g., pleading See, under of e. the code old. Cook 419. But system allegation “restrict[s] that bare suffices under a general pleadings notice-giving of task and in vestís] deposition-discovery process with vital role in preparation Taylor, for trial.”3 Hickman v. (1947); Swierkiewicz, 501 see also 534 U. atS., 513, n. 4 “ (citing example simplicity brevity 9 Form as of ‘the contemplate’”); of statement which rules Thomson v. (CA7 2004) J.) (“The (Posner, Washington, F. 3d replaced federal pleading”). rules fact with notice

II It history is in Conley the context this Gibson, of (1957), Conley plain- U. S. must be understood. alleged tiffs were black railroad who workers their protect against union local had refused to them discrimina- tory discharges, Railway in violation of the National Labor sought complaint Act. The union dismiss on the ground general allegations discriminatory that its treat- by specificity. ment Writing the defendants lacked sufficient 3 The Federal Rules impose “particularity” requirement do on “all mistake,” 9(b), averments of fraud or Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. neither of which the canon of ex- been alleged has recognized this case. We have presio unius est exclusio 9(b). alterius See Leatherman Rule applies Unit, County v. Tarrant Intelligence Narcotics and Coordination (1993). 163, 168 S.U. rejected the union’s Black Court, Justice unanimous for language at 47-48. Id., of Rule 8. as foreclosed claim doing articulated the formulation so, he course In the sufficiency of the rejects today: appraising the “In Court accepted a com- course, the rule that follow, we to state claim plaint failure not be dismissed should plaintiff prove beyond appears can that the doubt unless support would entitle his claim which facts in no set of Id., at 45-46. him to relief.” Conley's design Rules, the Federal with the

Consistent only outright permits dismissal formulation “no set facts” beyond discovery be futile. proceeding would when plaintiff that, true, if a claim has stated *28 it is clear that a Once appropriately proof relief, of are him to matters entitle would Today, process. relegated stages how- of trial to other explanation decision to dismiss of a ever, in its scraps fishing expedition, regards the Court Con- that it Concluding phrase language. ley's of facts” “no set long away explained “questioned, criticized, has been enough,” it as careless ante, 562, Court dismisses composition. language let Conley's interred, is to be “no of facts”

If set language, eulogy. which the not without a That exact it years,” profession says “puzzl[ed] majority for 50 has authority opinions in a dozen 563, been cited as ante, at has writings.4 separate In not one of and four of this Court 4 County Davis Monroe Zandford, 535 U. S. (2002); 813, SEC v. v. 818 Ed., California, Fire Ins. Co. (1999); Bd. v. 629, S. 654 526 U. Hartford of County Inyo, 593, (1993); Brower 598 764, v. 489 U. S. U. S. 811 509 of curiam); Rowe, (per (1980) McLain Hughes v. v. 5, (1989); U. S. 10 449 Orleans, Inc., Estelle (1980); Bd. v. 232, New Real Estate S. 246 444 U. v. Trustees Rex Gamble, Hospital Building Co. (1976); 97, 106 429 U. S. Rhodes, 232, Scheuer 738, (1976); 416 U. S. 236 Hospital, 746 v. 425 U. S. curiam); Beto, (1972) Haines (per v. Cruz (1974); 319, 322 v. 405 U. S. McKeithen, curiam); Jenkins Kerner, (1972) (per v. 395 519, 404 U. S. 521 Ed. v. Cleveland Bd. (1969) 411, see also (plurality opinion); 422 U. S. Loudermill, (1985) J., (Brennan, part 532, concurring 554

578

those 16 was “criti opinions language “questioned,” cized,” Indeed, away.” today’s is the “explained opinion this first Member of Court doubt as by any express Conley to the formulation. their adequacy Taking courts, 26 cues from the federal States the District of utilize as their standard for Columbia dismissal of a com the very majority repudiates: whether plaint language that “no set of doubt” facts” in appears “beyond support .5 the claim entitle the relief would plaintiff Ronwin, (1984) Hoover v. 558, 587 part); (Stevens, 466 S. dissenting U. Evans, Lines, J., United Air Inc. v. 553, 561, 431 U. dissenting); S. n. 1 Ky. (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Rights Simon Eastern v. Welfare Organization, (1976) 55, 26, (Brennan, J., 426 U. n. 6 S. concurring judgment). 5See, Invs., Inc., g., Development, e. EB LLC Atlantis 502, v. 930 So. 2d (Ala. 2005); Department Health & Social Servs. v. Native Village 507 (Alaska 2006); Curyung, 151 Maricopa Newman v. Cty., 388, P. 3d 396 Public Serv. Co. of 501, 503, 1253, 1991); Ariz. P. 1255 (App. 167 808 2d (Colo. 2001) (en Wyk, 377, Colo. Van Clawson v. banc); v. 27 P. 3d 385-386 LLC, Post-Dispatch, (D. Louis St. 308, Hillman 2006); 906 A. 2d 312 C. Wainer, (Fla. Corp. Constr. Kaplan v. 1994); 576, So. App. v. 636 2d 578 Kaplan, Wright 613, (1996); v. Home 198, 266 Ga. 469 S. E. 2d 199 A, Inc., Depot U. Taylor S. 401, 406, (2006); P. Haw. 3d Maile, Fink Bryant, 253, 257, (2005); v. 127 P. 3d Idaho v. (La. Gagne 2001-CC-0987, 11/28/01), 346, 349; Cianbro v. p. 801 So. 2d Corp., 431 A. (Me. Gasior Massachusetts Gen. 1313, 1318-1319 1981); 2d Walker, Hospital, *29 Ralph 1133, 1135 645, 647, 846 (2006); 446 Mass. E. 2d N. Gallagher, (Miss. Inc. v. 890, 893 Jones Montana Univ. 2006); 926 So. 2d v. System, 337 Mont. 1, 7, Johnston Nebraska 1247, 1252 (2007); 155 P. 3d v. Dept. Servs., Correctional 987, 989, 321, 270 W. 2d Neb. 709 N. 324 Ct., Blackjack v. Las Bonding Vegas Munic. (2006); 1213, 1217, 116 Nev. Bank, Shepard Fed. Ocwen 1275, (2000); 14 P. 3d 137, 1278 v. 361 N. C. Co., 139, Rose v. United Ins. Equitable 197, (2006); 638 S. E. 199 2d 2001 Houk, 154, 10,632 State ex rel. Turner v. N. 429, 434; ¶ ND W. 2d 112 Ohio curiam); (per 561, 562, 2007-Ohio-814, ¶5, 104, St. 3d 862 E. 2d N. 105 Dawson, Moneypenney Gagnon 53, 2, 549, 551; ¶ v. OK 141 P. 2006 3d v. State, Farrier, (R. 656, Osloond I.1990); 28, 4, 570 A. 659 v. ¶ 2d 2003 SD curiam); Inc., Works, 22 (per Smith v. Lincoln Brass 20, N. 659 W. 2d 712 Owners, (Tenn. Haystack Property Association of 470, 471 1986); W. 2d S. Inc. v. In re Sprague, Coday, 122, (1985); 443, 446, 145 494 Vt. A. 2d 124

579 Conley the formula- Petitioners have not that requested of the six amici who filed briefs retired, be nor have tion rewrite would not the Nation’s I petitioners. support call textbooks and into doubt civil procedure more deliber- most its without far informed rules of States has established ation as the costs of so. Congress doing revisions of that order. process rulemaking process —for —a (2000 IV). §§2072-2074 28 ed. and See U. S. C. Supp. ” “ ‘no of facts’ set language calls Today’s majority Conley’s on an “an accepted pleading incomplete, negative gloss be a claim has been stated adequately, may standard: once Hamp- (2006) (en banc); Haines 485, 497, 130 809, 815 v. Wash. 2d P. 3d 156 Comm’n, War- Cty. 499, 828, (2004); shire 502, E. 216 Va. 607 S. 2d 831 W. Townson, Hart, Malpiede 1987); 511, ren also v. (Wyo. v. 747 P. 2d 512 see (Del. 2001) 1075, “where (permitting only A. 2d dismissal 780 1082-1083 certainty plaintiff with reasonable could the court determines that alle- prevail may well-pleaded no inferred from the on set facts that (internal Canel omitted)); v. marks gations complaint” quotation (2004) Topinka, 318, 311, 311, (replacing “ap- 212 2d 818 N. E. 2d 317 Ill. Conley clearly beyond in the formulation with pears apparent”); doubt” “is curiam) Young, (per (Ind. 1988) In 386, re (replacing N. E. 2d 522 388 Barkema v. Wil- certainty”); to a beyond “appears doubt” with “appears Co., (Iowa 2003) Pipeline 612, liams (holding N. W. 614 666 2d “only there no conceiv- motion dismiss should be sustained when exists Pioneer relief”); Village non-moving party able set of facts entitling 2003) Cty., v. Bullitt 757, (Ky. (holding judgment 104 S. W. 3d 759 beyond “if it granted appears on the should be doubt pleadings would him/her nonmoving party set of facts that entitle prove any cannot Ed., Bd. Corley Detroit 274, 277, relief”); W. 2d v. 470 Mich. 681 N. curiam) (2004) (per 342, (holding judgment that a motion for on “ development possi- ‘if no could granted only factual pleadings should be EUisville, Oberkramer W. ”); v. 706 S. 2d bly recovery’ justify Conley (en banc) (Mo. 1986) (omitting “beyond the words doubt” from Bd., (Utah Land Colman v. Utah State formulation); P. 2d 1990) “only clearly if it is appropriate to dismiss that motion (holding his support of no of facts in plaintiff] prove can set appears [the Bank-Southwest, Management First Va. Corp. NRC Servs. claim”); Conley (“The (2003) Virginia [to is identical standard Va. Cir. used formulation], may have though Supreme Virginia Court it”). to describe same words *30 by showing any supported set facts consistent with the complaint.” allegations in Ante, the at 563. This is not Conley cannot be what the Court meant. as I have First, explained, Conley pleading and as the Court well knew, the codify require, standard the Federal Rules meant to does not “pleading or invite, even the of facts.6 The stand- majority gives Conley ard” label the what it reads to into the opinion permissible support of the statement factual for —a adequately pleaded complaint an not, therefore, have —would impressed Conley Rather, Court itself. that Court majority’s remodeling would have understood of its lan- guage express evidentiary Conley standard, to an which the explicate. Court neither need nor want to Second, had it is pellueidly Conley clear that Court was interested what complaint may contain, must what it fact, contain. In qualification “appraising said without it Court that was sufficiency complaint.” (emphasis S., 355 U. at 45 added). paraphrase today’s májority, describing It towas, adequate pleading govern “the minimum standard of complaint’s survival,” ante, at 563. triply Conley’smeaning by

We examining can be sure Appeals Conley the three Court of cases the Court cited as support “accepted complaint that rule” “a should not majority say is what require correct that the Federal Rules is “ ” Ante, ‘showing’ of entitlement to relief. n. 3. Whether and to what that “showing” extent requires allegations depend fact will on particulars of the claim. example, For had the amended only parallel conduct, alleged this case not have made would the re See supra, quired “showing.” Similarly, at 570-571. had the pleadings only contained an allegation agreement, specifying without nature object agreement, they of that would have been susceptible charge they provide did not may sufficient notice the defendants intelligently. answer Omissions of type that sort instance the of “bare ness” with which the A plaintiff’s Federal Rules are inability concerned. persuade actually district court included her complaint are “plausible” altogether kind of failing, different and one pleading stage. should not be fatal at the

581 it failure to state claim unless appears be dismissed for in can no set of facts doubt that the prove beyond plaintiff entitle him to relief.” 355 of his which would claim support Mut. Leimer v. State case, 45-46. first U. at In the S., Life (CA8 Worcester, Mass., 1940), F. Co. 108 2d 302 Assurance of of she the a life that was beneficiary the alleged plaintiff was the insurance and that insurance company wrong- plan In her. the Dis- from reversing fully proceeds withholding dismiss, to trict of the defendant’s motion Court’s grant that, own rule Circuit noted that court’s longstanding Eighth “ dismissal, to ‘it warrant should from appear exist, cause of does not rather than that cause that a action Id., of has been stated.’” 305 defectively (quoting action (CA8 1934)). Rockwood, 69 v. F. 2d Winget Leimer the Federal The court viewed specifically Rules — 12(e) (motion 8(a)(2), 12(b)(6), for a more definite state- Rules (motion ment), and 56 for reinforc- summary judgment) —as is for the notion that “there no ing justification dismissing of statement, where it insufficiency except ap- to a that the would be entitled to no pears certainty plaintiff in of which could be relief under state facts proved sup- 2d, F. at 306. The refuted claim.” court port the unlikelihood terms any suggestion strongest “No mat- the fate of a should determine complaint: recovery claim, can her ter it be that she may how improbable prove is make the attempt, she is entitled to an opportunity of her as final determination rights accept required of the from in favor defendant inferences drawn based upon Ibid. her amended complaint.” Conti- Leimer’s on admonition Circuit relied Third Shober, (1942), which Collieries,

nental Inc. v. F. 2d 631 set facts” cited its “no Court also in support the Conley alleged In a action diversity plaintiff formulation. the com- contract, District Court dismissed but the breaeh of unen- appeared contract on ground plaint reversed, law. The Appeals under state Court forceable that there were facts concluding dispute went to enforceability contract, and that the rule at the plead- was as in Leimer: “No matter how ing stage likely may seem will be pleader unable his prove case, he entitled, a claim, to an upon averring opportunity to try 3d, it.” F. at 635. prove

The third case the cited Conley Court was approvingly written Dioguardi Clark himself. In by Judge Durning, (CA2 2d 774 se 1944), F. pro plaintiff, importer *32 “tonics,” the customs with charged inspector off auctioning the former merchandise for less than plaintiff’s was bid for it—and indeed for an amount to the own equal plaintiff’s bid—and two of cases tonics went complained missing three weeks before the The inference, sale. hinted at the by averments but never stated so in words, was the many defendant denied the his fraudulently claim plaintiff rightful to the tonics, which, true, if would have violated federal law. six after the Writing years Federal adoption Rules he held the rein in lead Clark drafting, said Judge defendant

“could have disclosed the facts from his view, of in point advance of a trial if he chose, for a by asking pre-trial for a hearing by moving with summary judgment sup- porting But, stands, affidavits. as it we do not see how plaintiff may his in court properly deprived day to show what he so obviously believes and what firmly for present defendant must be taken as purposes admit- Id., at 775. ting.”

As civil any student procedure knows, Clark’s Judge opinion disquieted defense bar and rise to a movement gave “ revise Rule 8 to a ‘cause of ac- require plaintiff plead ” tion.’ § See & Miller 86-87. The Wright move- ibid.; ment failed, see Dioguardi was in explicitly approved and Conley; the case itself seems “[i]n to be retrospect universally application principles ac- that are routine cepted,” Wright 1220,at 284-285. Miller & Dioguardi, Collieries, light Leimer, In Continental Conley’s is not to be dismissed statement that a support would entitle the “no set facts” in thereof unless hardly “puzzling,” ante, at It plaintiff 562-563. to relief is pleading, days philosophy in of code that, unlike reflects a assigned separating task from the chaff is a wheat language, process. Conley’s pretrial short, trial captures policy embodied the Federal Rules and choice binding on the federal courts. understanding consistently reaffirmed that basic

We have Conley. century For in the half since of the Federal Rules (1974), example, Rhodes, 416 U. we re- Scheuer v. S. pleadings Appeals’ dismissal on the versed the Court of respondents, officialsof when the Governor other petitioners’ argued claims were Ohio, State immunity. by by opinion sovereign In a unanimous barred then-justice emphasized: Rehnquist, we sufficiency of a com- reviews the “When federal court reception plaint, either evidence before the *33 necessarily a limited admissions, or its task is affidavit ultimately plaintiff will The issue not whether one. is to offer evi- prevail the claimant is entitled but whether may appear support on to the claims. Indeed dence recovery very pleadings remote that a the the face (em- unlikely Id., at 236 is not the test.’’ and but added). phasis generally plaintiffs “alleged in conclu- and had Rhodes by calling

sory out the National defendants, that the terms” pro- University suppress student the Kent State to Guard negligent guilty conduct.” wanton, and wilful tests, “were (CA6 1972). We re- 2d Rhodes, v. 471 F. Krause “[w]hatever ground Appeals on the Court versed plaintiffs may may be able establish to the as claims, merits of their as their stated allegations, in the com- the favorable plaints, given required by the Federal reading Procedure,” Rules of were Civil not barred by Eleventh Amendment because were they suits styled against in their defendants individual 416 U. 238. S., at capacities. We one with voice efforts again spoke against to expand their limits requirements beyond appointed County Intelligence Leatherman v. Tarrant Narcotics Coordination Unit, (1993). 507 U. S. 163 for the Writing Court, unanimous Chief Justice rebuffed the Fifth Rehnquist Circuit’s effort to craft a standard for pleading lia municipal that accounted bility for “the enormous involved expense County Leatherman Tarrant Narcot today litigation,” Intelligence ics Unit, and Coordination 954 F. 2d 1054, 1057 (1992) (internal omitted), marks quotation requiring plaintiff “state with factual detail and particularity basis for the claim which includes necessarily why the defendant-official cannot maintain the defense of successfully (internal S., 507 U. at immunity,” marks quotation omit ted). We found this 8(a)(2) inconsistent with Rules language 9(b) that motions emphasized were not dismiss to combat place abuse: “In discovery the absence of [an amendment 9(b)], to Rule federal courts and must litigants on rely summary and control of judgment weed discovery Id., out unmeritorious claims sooner rather than later.” 168-169. Swierkiewicz,

Most recently, we were faced with a case similar to more than one present will allow. In majority cases, discrimination our precedents require a at the plaintiff summary judgment stage produce either direct if or, evidence of discrimination the claim is based on primarily evidence, circumstantial to meet shifting burdens under framework evidentiary imposed *34 Douglas Corp. Green, McDonnell articulated in g., Airlines, (1973). e. Inc. Trans World v. Thur- See, (1985). ston, 469 U. that he S. Swierkiewicz alleged on in terminated account of national viola had been origin tion Title VII the Civil Act of 1964. The Second Rights the suit on the he Circuit dismissed because had pleadings facie case not of discrimination under the prima pleaded Douglas McDonnell standard. reversed in another unanimous

We opinion, holding not “under notice is re- pleading system, appropriate facts facie case quire plaintiff plead establishing prima Douglas the McDonnell because framework does not apply Swierkiewicz, every discrimination case.” employment 8(a)(2) S., at also 534 U. 511. We observed that Rule does not a court’s on the merits contemplate of a passing litigant’s Rather, claim at the notice pleading stage. “simplified standard” of the Rules “relies on liberal Federal discovery rules motions to define summary judgment facts and issues and to of unmeritorious disputed dispose Id., 512; claims.” see Brief for United States et al.

Amici A, Curiae in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. O. T. 00-1853, 12(b)(6)

No. that a p. Rule motion is (stating “an device for as- truth of what is appropriate testing serted for whether a evi- determining has plaintiff (internal to back what dence is up complaint” quota- omitted)).7 tion marks context,

As we have discrimination developed claims framework for under evidentiary evaluating Act rest Sherman when those claims on circumstan- entirely Indus- See Matsushita Elec. evidence of tial conspiracy. § 1202, also 5 & Miller under the Wright (“[PJleadings See at 89-90 simply may summary party’s general position rules be a party pro the other sued being upon, sufficient advise the event decided guidance vide some in a as to was subsequent proceeding what to indicate purposes judicata estoppel, of res and collateral No more is or to a jury. whether case should tried to the court indeed, no this; history more demanded than shows pleadings (footnotes omitted)). successfully by performed pleadings” can be *35 586 Corp.,

trial v. Zenith Radio Co. (1986). 475 S. 574 U. Under Matsushita, of an plaintiff’s allegations illegal conspiracy at not, the rest the may summary stage, on judgment solely be drawn from the inferences that may parallel conduct the In to survive a Rule a 1 motion, defendants. order 56 ‘that “must evidence tends to the plaintiff present exclude the acted alleged possibility’ conspirators independ- Spray-Rite Id., at 588 Monsanto Co. ently.’” (quoting Corp., Service (1984)). 465 U. That is, S. the plain- tiff the “must show that inference of is reasonable conspiracy inferences of light action or competing independent S., collusive action.” at U. 588. would therefore make

Everything today’s majority says sense if it were on a motion perfect Rule 56 for sum- ruling mary evidence included more than judgment nothing the Court has But it described. should without go saying of Swierkiewicz in the wake heightened production burden at does not summary translate judgment stage into a burden heightened at complaint stage. in this majority rejects case because —in fact that light conduct is consistent parallel alleged with market behavior —the claimed ordinary is conspiracy ante, “conceivable” but not I have 570. “plausible,” my doubts about the assessment majority’s plausibility this Part if III, See But alleged conspiracy. even infra. correct, is its majority’s speculation stand- “plausibility” is ard irreconcilable with Rule with our governing Swierkiewicz and Leath- As we made clear in precedents. erman, fear of the burdens of does not litigation justify factual conclusions supported only lawyers’ arguments rather than sworn denials or admissible evidence.

This case is a vehicle for the new poor Court’s plead- rule, for ing cases, we have observed that “in antitrust con- where ‘the is in the hands of the proof largely alleged . . . dismissals spirators,’ ample prior plaintiff giving granted opportunity discovery very sparingly.” should be Building Hospital Hospital, Trustees Co.v. Rex (1976) (quoting Broadcasting 738, 746 Poller v. Columbia (1962)); System, Inc., 368 U. S. see also Knuth v. Dairy Cooperative 2d Assn., 395 F. Erie-Crawford 1968) (“The (CA3 approach ‘liberal’ to the consideration of complaints important antitrust because inherent in such *36 specific action an is the fact that the and all details facts upon properly part plead- relied cannot forth set ings”). Moreover, the fact that the Sherman Act authorizes recovery damages attorney’s the treble fees for suc- plaintiffs Congress cessful that indicates intended encour- age, discourage, private rather than enforcement the law. League, See Radovich v. 445, National Football 352 U. S. (1957) (“Congress placed private itself has the antitrust litigant position in a most favorable In .... the face of such policy requirements this Court should not add to burden private litigant beyond specifically what is set forth laws”). Congress in those It more, is therefore not im- less, portant urge engage in antitrust cases to resist the pleading stage. armchair economics at the year Conley, Judge

The same we decided wrote, Clark presciently, every age

“I special fear that must its learn lesson pleading cannot be to do made the service of trial litigants that live issues between active are not to be disposed paper pleadings, of or evaded on the e., i. parties. Experience

formalistic claims of the has found quick easy generally no short cut trials in for cases particular.” Special Pleading and antitrust cases in “Big Case”? Procedure —The Handmaid Justice (C. 1965) (herein- Wright 147, 148 eds. & H. Reasoner Case) Special Pleading Big (empha- Clark, after in the added). sis Case,”

In this Court succumbs “Big temptation Courts have resisted.8 steadfastly previous While it is assures us majority applying any “‘height- ” ante, see n. standard, 14,1 ened’ shall now I have a difficult time its why explain understanding opinion other way.

Ill Court does not an what agreement do suggest would be under the antitrust allege permissible plaintiffs g., e. Cal., Associated Gen. Contractors Inc. laws, see, Carpenters, (1983). 459 U. S. 526-527 Nor does the Court hold that these have failed to plaintiffs allege injury them to laws, sue under those entitling damages see Corp. Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., Brunswick v. Pueblo (1977). Rather, 489-490 on which the Court theory per- Pharmaceuticals, Broudo, Our in Dura Inc. v. decision 544 U. S. 336 (2005), There, contrary. not to plaintiffs adequately failed causation, allege required private loss element in securities fraud ac *37 tion. alleged nothing prices Because it more than that the of the securi inflated, the plaintiffs purchased artificially complaint ties were the Dura failed “provid[e] to the defendants with of what relevant notice the eco nomic might loss or of what the might causal connection be between Id., Here, that loss the [alleged] misrepresentation.” at 347. the majority failure the a identifies is not failure of notice—which “notice pleading” rightly satisfy condemns—but rather a failure the that to Court agreement a alleged might plausibly being ques have That occurred. tion not of proof, notice but of it should not be answered without first (as hearing from apart lawyers). the defendants from their Cal., Similarly, in Carpenters, Associated Gen. Contractors Inc. v. (1983), U. S. 519 in complaint wanting, which we also found an antitrust injuries problem alleged satisfy was not that failed to plaintiffs alleged some of plausibility, injuries threshold but rather were Id., “the type not that the forestall.” antitrust statute was intended to (“As id., 540; us, see at 526 to must assume that the case comes we not, prove complaint. Union can is alleged facts in its amended It however, proper to prove assume that can facts that has not the Union alleged in ways or that the antitrust laws defendants have violated the that have not alleged”). been as the are that, so far Federal Rules con-

mits dismissal cerned, no has been at all. This is agreement alleged conclusion. mind-boggling the enactment of the Tele-

As the Court prior explains, Act 1996 the law defend- communications prohibited ants from with each other. The new statute was competing market with enacted replace monopolistic competitive The Act one. did merely require regional monopo- lists to take affirmative to facilitate to new com- steps entry see Verizon Inc. Law Communications petitors, Officesof Trinko, LLP, V. Curtis (2004); 540 U. S. it also per- mitted the firms to with each other and to existing compete their into forbidden expand operations previously territory. §271. Each of

See C. the defendants decided not to take the latter That was step. obviously extremely decision, business and I am important presume willing that each acted company entirely independently reaching I decision. am even to entertain the willing majority’s belief that was any agreement among companies unlikely.

But the in three in their plaintiffs allege places complaint, 4, 51, 64, 11, 27, 30, that the ILECs did fact App. ¶¶ agree both from their prevent competitors into local entering markets and to with each other. And as forgo competition the Court at the motion dismiss recognizes, stage, judge assumes “that all the in the are true complaint fact).” Ante, (even if doubtful at 555. circumvents this obvious obstacle to dis- majority

missal it does ad- not exist. The Court by pretending that “in form a few in the mits statements stray but those directly speak agreement,” disregards allega- tions fair these are “on saying reading merely legal conclusions on the con- resting prior allegations” *38 parallel Ante, duct. at 564. The Court’s between factual dichotomy conclusions” is the stuff of a “legal allegations bygone supra, at That era, 574-576. distinction was fea- a defining Clark, ture of code see in The pleading, generally Complaint 590 (1925-1926), but J. 259 was conspic 35 Yale L. Pleading,

Code in Rules were when the Federal enacted abolished uously Assn, Employing Plasterers States v. United 1938. See of Chicago, (1954) antitrust 186, (holding, 188 347 U. S. on inter of effects case, Government’s account taken into deciding must be state commerce these charges “[w]hether the complaint whether to dismiss ‘mere conclusions of fact’ or be called ‘allegations Conine, (CA7 1992) ”); Brownlee 353, 354 v. 957 F. 2d pleader’ (“The Procedure establish system of Civil Federal Rules . . so the than fact . rather pleading, notice pleading ex whatever ‘eonclusory,’ that a complaint happenstance means, not automati cliché does lawyers’ that overused actly Lucky Lager Distributing Walker Co. v. it”); condemn cally Brewing Co., (CA9 1963) (“[O]ne 1, 323 F. 2d 3-4 purpose technical distinction from the away highly Rule was get ”); Oil, of law... of fact and conclusions between statements Delta, Int’l Union Chemical & Atomic Workers F. 2d (CA6 1960) (“Under notice 694, 697 system pleading Procedure,. .. ancient the Rules of established Civil by no ‘facts’ and ‘conclusions’ is distinction between pleading (“[T]he 1218, & Miller at longer significant”); Wright facts or federal rules do not legal prohibit fair notice is to the conclusions as long given parties”). is no con into contract” more legal “Defendants entered drove,” 9; see Form clusion than “defendant negligently supra, it at 575-576. Indeed is less of one.9 agreement, even if cred allegation The Court of an suggests ited, required specific Rule 8 because lacks might give the notice Ante, 565, ity. remedy allegation lacking n. for an sufficient at 10. 12(e) is, course, a provide Rule motion for adequate notice specificity A, v. Sorema N. See Swierkiewicz a more statement. definite (2002). no such motion and indeed have con Petitioners made speci is not lack of current problem “[o]ur ceded that with the Thus, the that “the Arg. 14. fact ficity, quite specific.” it’s Tr. of Oral time, persons involved place, or pleadings specific mentioned no ante, is, for our academic. purposes, n. alleged conspiracies,” *39 accept I the Court’s anachronistic if were inclined to Even allegations, dichotomy complaint’s ignore the actual suggestion dispute that inference of the Court’s I would “implausi- petitioners’ parallel agreement conduct from great perceptively Many ago truly years economist ble.” “[pjeople to- of the same trade seldom meet that observed diversion, gether, but the conversa- even for merriment and conspiracy against public, or in some con- in a tion ends prices.” Inquiry Smith, An Into the to A. trivance raise Nations, in of the Wealth of 39 Great Nature and Causes (R. Western World 55 & M. Adler eds. Books of the Hutchins 1952). cynical accept I to that am not sentiment at so Respondents’ I not so value, face but need do here. com- plaint points only petitioners’ opportunities not to numerous Complaint App. ¶ other, 46, 23,10 to meet with each but also encroaching Notebaert’s that on a fel- curious statement territory “might good way to low incumbent’s be a turn right,” App. quick ¶ id., 42, it dollar but that doesn’t make 22. (indeed possible plausible) What did he mean that? One that in his inference is that he meant while would be company’s compete with economic self-interest to its breth- competitors agreed ren, had with his not to so. Ac- he do cording complaint, to the that is how the Illinois Coalition Competitive statement, Telecom construed Notebaert’s potential ¶ App. (calling the statement “evidence id., among regional phone monopolies not Bell com- collusion my allegation reference to the defend Court describes “playfully” belong suggesting various trade associations as ants Ante, Quite 12. restrain trade. at n. conspired the defendants basis, like contrary: allegation competitors regular An meet on conduct, though not is consistent suffi parallel with — prove plaintiffs’ entirely unequivocal allegation serious and cient —the Indeed, if it agreement. the defendants into an unlawful entered parallel plaintiffs descriptions were true that the “rest their claim on agreement among any independent allegation conduct and on actual ILECs,” ante, in including no purpose there would have been amended meetings complaint. to the a reference trade association potential pete against competitors and kill off one another service”), phone Congress and that is how Members of local (describ- company’s App. ¶ 45, behavior, id., his construed ing requesting Department to the a letter Justice an investi- “ gation possibility ‘very apparent into the that the ILECs’ *40 ” coordinated). non-competition policy’ was competition

Perhaps meant instead that Notebaert would long be short but not in sensible the term the run. That’s lawyers anyway. what Brief for his tell us See Petitioners 36. I would think that no one know But would better what per- Notebaert meant Notebaert himself. Instead than respondents mitting Notebaert, however, to ask the Court quotes looks to that and other from other articles and decides entering he what meant was new markets as a com- “ petitive exchange local be a carrier would not ‘sustainable ” Ante, model.’ at 568, economic n. Never that— 13. mind anyone newspaper ever interviewed knows—a article is hardly transcript; quotes a verbatim to writer selects package story, subject’s poster- his record a not to views for ity. importantly required But more the District Court was stage proceedings at this to am- construe Notebaert’s biguous plaintiffs’ statement in the favor.11 See Allen v. (1984) Wright, (Brennan, n. 1 767-768, J., dis- senting). supports The inference the si- statement —that by attempt poach multaneous decisions to ILECs not even to from customers one once another the law authorized them to 11It justify is ironic that seeks to decision to Court its draw factual inferences defendants’ favor pleading stage by citing at the a evidence, ante, rule of n. 13. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), a judicially subject noticed fact “must be one not reasonable (1) dispute in juris is either known the territorial generally within (2) trial capable ready diction of the court or of accurate and determination accuracy reasonably resort questioned.” sources whose cannot Whether conspiracy Notebaert's statements constitute evidence hardly beyond dispute. reasonable product agreement

do so were the comfortably of an —sits possibility. within the realm require. That is all the Rules clear, To be if I judge had been the trial case, in this permitted plaintiffs I would engage not have in mas- discovery solely sive based on the in this com- plaint. surely On the other hand, I would not have dis- requiring missed without the defendants to charge they agreed answer compete “have not to with one another and otherwise allocated customers and Complaint, App. markets to one ¶ another.”12 27. Even charge justify sworn denial of that summary would not giving plaintiffs opportunity dismissal without depositions take from responsible Notebaert and at least one representing executive each of the other defendants. “ Respondents proposed plan ‘phased in this case dis- covery’” alleged conspiracy limited to existence of the Respondents and class certification. Brief for 25-26. Two *41 petitioners rejected plan. the Ibid. Whether or not re- spondents’ proposed plan appropriate was sensible, it was an subject negotiation.13 charge for the Given in the com-

12 The Court seeking worries that a defendant respond “conclu to this Ante, sory” allegation “would have little begin.” 565, idea where to at could, course, A by n. 10. defendant of begin denying or admitting either charge. potential “sprawling, costly, hugely and time-consuming” dis ante, covery, baby at n. reason to is no throw the with out vastly bathwater. The Court underestimates a district case- court’s management discovery begins, arsenal. may grant Before even the court 12(e) 7(a) motion; a defendant’s Rule permits Rule a trial order a court to Britton, plaintiff reply answer, to a defendant’s see v. Crawford-El (1998); “rigorous analysis” U. S. Rule 23 requires and to ensure Telephone General Co. Southwest appropriate, that class certification is Falcon, 457 U. S. 147, 161 (1982); Offering see In re Initial Public Secu (CA2 2006) Litigation, rities (holding 471 F. 3d 24 that a district court may certify ruling requirement not a class without Rule 23 is that each issue). met, if a requirement overlaps even with a merits Rule 16 invests judge power, by sanctions, pretrial regulate trial with the a backed sense of

plaint by common Adam Smith— —buttressed I cannot say possibility joint and discussions some a role perhaps agreements played petitioners’ de- is so cisionmaking process implausible dismissing before defendant has denied the charge preferable even granting minimal respondents opportu- proceedings orders, via conferences scheduling and at which the parties discuss, alia, may inter defenses,” “the elimination of frivolous claims or 16(c)(1); Rule necessity “the or desirability of amendments to the plead- 16(c)(2); ings,” Rule “the control scheduling of discovery,” Rule 16(c)(6);and “the adopting special procedures need for for managing po- tentially difficult or protracted may issues, actions that involve complex multiple parties, legal questions, difficult proof problems,” unusual Rule 16(c)(12). Subsequently, Rule 26 confers broad discretion control the interrogatories, admissions, combination of requests for production re- quests, case; and depositions permitted given in a sequence in which discovery such may devices be deployed; and the limitations imposed upon 26(c) S., them. See Indeed, 523 U. at 598-599. Rule specifically permits a court to take protect party actions “to or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or or expense” by, undue burden for example, disallowing particular discovery request, setting appropriate terms and conditions, or its limiting scope. short,

In contemplate Federal Rules pretrial matters will be through take, settled process give proffers, flexible stipulations, stonewalls, having judges plau trial screen for their sibility vel non without requiring an answer from defendant. See Societe pour Participations Internationale Industrielles et Commercia les, (1958)(“Rule v. Rogers, 197, 206 S. A. sufficiently 34 is flexible adapted to be to the exigencies particular litigation”). And should apparent become over litigation plaintiff’s the course of that a be filings speak suit, an in terrorem court district has its call its own in device, array terrorem form a wide Rule sanctions. See *42 (c) 11(b), Rules any if (authorizing presented sanctions a suit is ‘Tor im proper purpose, as unnecessary delay such to or to cause harass need Guides, less in increase of litigation”); cost see Business Inc. v. Chro (1991) Inc., matic S. Enterprises, (holding Communications 498 U. 533 applies Rule 11 a represented party signs pleading, motion, to who Fischer, or other papers, attorneys); as as v. well to Atkins 232 F. R. D. (DC 2005) (“As 116, 126 11, possible pursuant to sanctions Rule the court has an options arsenal of disposal”). at its to Clark, their claims. See New nity prove Federal Rules (“[Tjhrough weapons discovery summary we have devices, new with more judgment developed appro- proof, to aid in matters of priate penalties and do not need function”). to force the to their less pleadings appropriate I fear that the unfortunate result new majority’s rule will be invite debates over eco- lawyers’ nomic theory resolve suits conclusively antitrust in the absence of evidence. It is no that the antitrust surprise defense whom “lament” as to among inadequate judicial bar — ante, is supervision “common,” most see at discovery 559—should for this lobby state of affairs. But “we must recall their primary is win responsibility cases for their clients, not to law administration improve for the pub- lic.” Clark, in the Special Case 152. Pleading As we Big did in decisions, our we prior should have instructed them their was to seek to remedy amend the Federal Rules— not our Swierkiewicz, interpretation them.14 See Britton, S., 515; U. at 574, U. S. Crawford-El (1998); Leatherman, S., 507 U. at 168.

IV Just a few weeks some of ago my explained colleagues a strict interpretation literal text of lan- statutory

14Given his “background law,” ante, in 6, Judge antitrust n. East erbrook has recognized that the most effective to discovery solution abuse lies in the legislative and arenas. rulemaking suggested He has that the remedy for the complains ills he of requires a revolution the rules of procedure: civil

“Perhaps system judges away which pare issues focus in- [on] is vestigation too radical contemplate this country although it pre- — vailed here before when the Federal Rules Civil Procedure were adopted. The could change not be accomplished without abandoning no- pleading, officers, tice increasing judicial the number of giving them authority.... more If we rule out judge-directed discovery, are to how- ever, we must prepared pay Part of piper. price high cost of unnecessary discovery impositional and otherwise.” Discovery — (1989). Abuse, 69 B. U. L. Rev. *43 to avoid not is essential decisions judicial that are

guage Zuni Public Dist. School of faithful to the intent Congress, Department Education, ante, No. 89 J., p. (Scalia, of that there in I believe are happen cases dissenting). which of more text, other tools construction are than reliable but I that of course intent congressional should agree guide Ante, us in of matters at statutory interpretation. in J., This is a case which inten concurring). the (Stevens, tions of the of three drafters sources of law —the important Sherman the Act of Act, Telecommunications the Federal Rules Civil Procedure —all in of point unmistakably direction, the the same Court marches the yet resolutely other the actions will Whether Court’s benefit way. only cases, in antitrust defendants or whether its treble-damages test for the will of inure to benefit sufficiency of all defendants, civil is an future will question swer. But that announced a Court has new significant rule not even that does purport respond any congres is sional obvious. command glaringly concern that drives the decision is transparent policy the interest in in this antitrust defendants —who protecting case of are some in wealthiest our econ- corporations Ante, the burdens of 558- omy pretrial discovery. —from 560. if Even it were not fees peti- apparent legal tioners have Rule incurred merits their arguing 12(b) motion far have the cost of exceeded limited discovery, or that those costs would burden discovery respondents well as would petitioners,15 concern an ade- provide for this quate justification decision. For law-changing final is a lack of analysis only confidence ability trial to control buttressed judges discovery, appellate judges’ independent appraisal plausibility pro- 15 It wrong, course, of an quite would to assume dismissal discovery plaintiff's. antitrust case Civ. after See Fed. Rule costless 54(d)(1) (“[C]osts attorneys’ Proc. fees other than shall be allowed as directs”). course to prevailing court .otherwise party unless the serious factual foundly that could allegations, account this stark break from precedent.

If the allegation conspiracy true, happens today’s decision obstructs the congressional policy favoring competi- tion that both the undergirds Telecommunications Act of the Sherman Act itself. More even importantly, if is there abundant evidence that untrue, allegation the case be directing dismissed without even looking of that evidence marks a fundamental —and unjustified— in the character of change pretrial practice. I

Accordingly, dissent. respectfully