Every litigator knows the standard for a motion to dismiss by heart: A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, as opposed to legal conclusions, to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and push the claim “across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
But there’s one complication—different judges have different “experiences” and different notions of “common sense.”
In a new article, Womble Carlyle antitrust litigation attorney Jason Hicks examines these differences as they play out in a recent Fourth Circuit case. Hicks’ article “4th Circ. Ruling Shows ‘Plausibility’ Is A Rorschach Test” has been published by Law360.com.
Hicks also frequently blogs about antitrust litigation issues at Womble Carlyle’s Antitrust and Distribution Law Blog.
Jason Hicks, a partner in Womble Carlyle’s DC and Charlottesville, Va. office, has experience litigating cases and counseling clients in a wide variety of matters involving contract disputes, business torts, federal and state antitrust laws, franchise laws, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. In that regard, Hicks has represented clients in the manufacturing, defense, pharmaceutical, real estate and gaming industries.