ief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assump

7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 4 of 9 Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8)• see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not requi

ouching" element of "battery," so that aspect of the assault and battery claim is not being challenged. With the standard of pleading established in Twombly, supra, in the context of assault, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). As to the elements of ass

rable to the plaintiff. . DeKalb County Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp.'. Twombly abrogated the often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that th

Civ. P. 8)• see also Bell Atlantic Corp. I. 5 EFTA00222486 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 6 of 12 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. • Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not requir

elief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp.. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assump

ief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption

the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8)• see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Dura Phann., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require

1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (111h Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulat

8-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 11 of 21 . v. Epstein, et al. 1111 the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal; for failure to state a cause

Health & Human Services Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1381 (11th Cir. 2010) ("[G]iven the pleading standards announced in Twombly and lqbal, [plaintiff] must do more than recite [] statutory elements in conclusory fashion. Rather, his allegations must proffer enough factual co

ure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' As the Court held in Twombly, . . . the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant

fliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon the person of another"). See 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1. With the standard of pleading established in Twombly supra, in the context of the elements for assault and battery, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6

ed on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 6 of 9 Case No. CV-80993-Hurley/Hopkins Page No. 6 a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, supra. Plaintiff is required to allege the facts of what EPSTEIN said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension of imminent peril in P

Civ. P. 8)• see also Bell Atlantic Corp. I. 5 EFTA00222022 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 6 of 12 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. • Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not requir

elief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp.. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assump

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 26 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 2 action,'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and just recently made clear that "Twombly expounded the pleading standard for "'all civil actions'" and not just "pleadi

y consistent with' a defendant's liability, it `stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.') (gtiontgi Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)). Indeed, Twombly itself supplies an excellent parallel to this case. In that case, plaintiffs alleged th

ible grounds to infer." Id. In Ashcroft I bal , 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court noted that two working principles underlay its decision in Twombly : (1) the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions; and (2) only

¶ 5. This claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In Bell Atlantic Corp. Twombly , 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), the Supreme Court observed that a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more

f 9 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assump

the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not requi

and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). In discussing Twombly the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (111h Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulati

egation in paragraph 15 as true, Plaintiff is not proceeding exclusively under §2255. Accordingly, under the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal for failure to state a cause

1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulat

11-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 11 of 21 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal; for failure to state a cause

ugh facts "to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' lqbal, 556 U.S. at 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (auoting / *570 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable infere

5, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. But a court is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. lqbal, 55

ible grounds to infer." Id. In Ashcroft I bal , 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court noted that two working principles underlay its decision in Twombly : (1) the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions; and (2) only

¶ 5. This claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In Bell Atlantic Corp. Twombly , 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), the Supreme Court observed that a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more

ort her claim as set forth in the statute, 18 §2422(b) and §2455. Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Pl

e light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp.'. Twombly abrogated the often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that th

ible grounds to infer." Id. In Ashcroft I bal , 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court noted that two working principles underlay its decision in Twombly : (1) the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions; and (2) only

¶ 5. This claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In Bell Atlantic Corp. Twombly , 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), the Supreme Court observed that a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more

favorable to the plaintiff. DeKalb Count Sch. Dist. 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp.,. Twombly abrogated the often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that th

0232-Marra-Johnson Page No. 9 FLSD Docket 10/C )8 Page 9 of 10 Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Pl

1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ. 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulati

8-80994-CIV-Marra ("Jane Doe No. 6) this Court rejected any contention by the Defendant that the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) requires a heightened fact pleading of specifics in the typical case to withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b