Iqbal and Rule 8

How does a Plaintiff strike a balance between Rule 8 and Iqbal/Twombly?  That is the question that I think, many of us wants to know.

In Gumble v. Metro Housing, Court File No. 11-cv-228, the District Court of Minnesota dismissed a 59-page complaint (and 250 paragraphs) with leave to amend. It is of note to say that case had 7 plaintiffs and 10 defendants.  In sum, the Court required the complaint be limited to 10,000 words. 

The Court explained,

In this case, plaintiffs’ attorneys have utterly failed to comply with Rule 8. This case grows out of a relatively simple dispute regarding whether two elderly couples living in Section 8 housing are entitled to a one-bedroom apartment (as is typically true for married couples) or a two-bedroom apartment (as is typically true when separate bedrooms are medically necessary). Yet plaintiffs’ complaint is not “short.” It sprawls across 60-odd pages and almost 250 paragraphs. Nor is plaintiffs’ complaint “plain.” Plaintiffs’ factual and legal allegations are, to a substantial extent, incomprehensible. Plaintiffs’ complaint manages to be both prolix and uninformative.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under courts, legal decision

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s