Also known as: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 · Rule 8 · FRCP Rule 8
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule requiring that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The rule demands enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face rather than merely possible or consistent with liability.
PixelPost LLC sued four media corporations alleging an unlawful conspiracy to deny it premium advertising inventory. The complaint stated only that PixelPost received lower ad rates than legacy outlets and that all defendants used the same ad network. The court disregarded the bare label of conspiracy and found the remaining allegations equally consistent with independent business decisions, so the claim failed to cross the plausibility threshold.
PixelSpark LLC sued ConnectNet Corp. for an antitrust conspiracy to block its app from app stores. The complaint cited vague industry-wide coordination and several roughly simultaneous policy changes across platforms. The court treated the parallel conduct as consistent with lawful independent decisions and held that the allegations remained only conceivable rather than plausible.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sean sued Global Cargo alleging misclassification as an independent contractor. The complaint stated only that he worked full time under company control on exclusive routes. The court found the single allegation conclusory because it supplied none of the specific facts about schedules, supervision, or equipment ownership needed to support a plausible inference of employee status.
Carl sued Premier Athletic for breach of a multi-year endorsement contract after termination without cause. The complaint identified the parties, the contract, and the termination but offered no specific provisions or breach details. The court held that the general assertions supplied the short and plain statement required and therefore denied the motion to dismiss.
A plaintiff offered a statement into evidence during trial but failed to mark it for identification. The court declined to consider whether the document could support any claim because the contents were unknown and the record contained no factual allegations that could be evaluated under the short and plain statement requirement.
A defendant in a diversity action moved to dismiss a complaint that contained only general assertions about contract existence and termination. The court applied the federal short and plain statement standard to assess sufficiency rather than any state heightened pleading requirement and denied the motion on that basis.
A complaint must include enough factual matter, taken as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Courts disregard conclusory allegations and then decide whether the remaining facts allow a reasonable inference of liability rather than conduct that is merely consistent with liability.
Supporting sources
No. Although a complaint must still provide a short and plain statement, that statement must now contain sufficient factual content to make the claim plausible rather than merely possible. Conclusory labels and facts consistent with both lawful and unlawful conduct are insufficient.
Supporting sources
A court grants the motion when the complaint, after disregarding legal conclusions, fails to allege facts that nudge the claim across the line from conceivable to plausible. Parallel conduct or vague references to coordination without concrete details of an agreement typically produce dismissal.
Supporting sources
…case presents the antecedent question of what a plaintiff must plead in order to state a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the…