Epstein Secrets

is claim that would entitle him to relief" Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibili

egal conclusion couched as a factual allegation"). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) C[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement o

s claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibili

egal conclusion couched as a factual allegation"). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller Federal Practice and EFTA00221997 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 4 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 4

s claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibili

egal conclusion couched as a factual allegation"). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller Federal Practice and EFTA00222746 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2008 Page 4 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 4