Epstein Secrets

doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his 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

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

oubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his 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

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

oubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his 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

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