plaintiff's claim is and 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. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 5 of 12 6 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc

at every complaint "'must contain something more than a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544. 555 (2007), and just last week made clear that "Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' and not j

ffrey Epstein Case No. 08-80994-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

he applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Supporting Memorandum of Law I. Motion To Dismiss Standard As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief t

ismissal for failure to state a cause of action. Supporting Memorandum of Law Rule 12 b 6 Motion To Dismiss As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twomblv, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief t

rey Epstein. D.E. 1, ¶ 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 requi

rey Epstein. D.E. 1, ¶ 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. v. Twombly , 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), the Supreme Court observed that a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief req

rey Epstein. D.E. 1, ¶ 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 requi

at every complaint "'must contain something more than a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544. 555 (2007), and just last week made clear that "Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' and not j

at every complaint "'must contain something more than a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544. 555 (2007), and just last week made clear that "Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' and not j

KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2008 Page 3 of 9 Case No. CV-80993-Hurley/Hopkins Page No. 3 As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief th

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

n Count Ill pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§2422, and Defendant has not "misconstrued" the pleading standard formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twomblv, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir.

at every complaint "'must contain something more than a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544. 555 (2007), and just last week made clear that "Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' and not j

at every complaint "'must contain something more than a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544. 555 (2007), and just last week made clear that "Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' and not j

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

or conclusions; rather it is determined by the factual allegations, which "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombley 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Pau

he plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. 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); Dur

ort of their claims in Counts I and III. According to Defendant, the pleadings in this case do not satisfy "the standard of pleading" established in Bell Atlantic Corp. I. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In making this argument, Defendant would extend Twomblv well beyond its intended scope. Twombly was an antitrust

n Count III pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§2422, and Defendant has not "misconstrued" the pleading standard formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir.