a dispositive issue of law.”78 This is true of any claim, “without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one.”79 Following the Roberts Court’s “civil procedure revival,”80 the landmark decisions of Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly81 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal82 tightened the standard that district courts must apply to 12(b)(6) motions.83 These cases “retired” the lenient “no-set-of-facts test” set forth in Conley v. Gibson and replaced it with a more exacting “plausibility” standard.84 Accordingly, after Twombly and Iqbal, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”85 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”86 “Although the plausibility standard does not impose a probability requirement, it does require a pleading to show more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Id. at 326 (internal citations omitted). Id. at 327. Howard M. Wasserman, The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival, 31 Rev. Litig. 313, 316, 319-20 (2012). 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Id. at 670. Id. Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Id. - 24 -