TheIusLex

ValenzuelaAlvarado, LLC

Vol. 1, July 2011

MCS Plaza 255 Ponce de Len Avenue Suite 825 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00917-1942 Tel. (787) 365-9401 Fax: (787) 756-4053 theiuslex@gmail.com jose.enrico.valenzuela1@gmail.com

The Pleadings: Recent developments in Iqbal v. Ashcroft, and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

A Valenzuela-Alvarado, LLC Publication

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (CLE)

(Remember to comply with your credits on ethics)

Seminario de tica Profesional: Aspectos Prcticos en Quejas y Querellas ticas ante el Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico.
(ETI-2007-48)
(4 horas crditos aprobadas por el Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico). (Repeticin) Recurso: Lic. Jos Enrico Valenzuela-Alvarado (Ex-Procurador General Auxiliar y Ex-Director de Asuntos Legales, Departamento de Justicia de Puerto Rico). Lugar: Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Puerto Rico, Ponce. Fecha: 12 de agosto de 2011 Costo: Preguntar a la Escuela de Derecho, Pontificia Universidad Catlca de P.R. Info.: (787) 841-2000 ext. 1917, 1899 1839. edujuridicacontinua@email.pucpr

Seminar: "Federal Civil Rights in Puerto Rico, General Pre Trial Theory and Practice"
(LITI-2010-419). Approved by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, 4-credits, Date: September 16, 2011 (Repetition). Hour: 1:30-5:45. Cost: To be announced. Lecturer: Jos-Enrico Valenzuela-Alvarado, Esq. (Former Assistant Solicitor General and Former Director of Legal Affairs, P.R. Department of Justice). Venue: Facultad de Derecho Eugenio Mara de Hostos, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico Cost: (To be announced) For more info.: 787-265-2900 ext. 280, mmendez@hostos.edu Se ofrecer en idioma espaol.

lorem ipsum :: [Date]

In

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.

set

of

facts to the

on

which be as

Ct. 1937, 1942 (2009), a Muslim against former officials Department Investigations, unconstitutional with under his Pakistani current from of pretrial and the Justice alleging actions detainee brought action government

[respondent] entitled against Invoking filed appeal an in

would relief

petitioners. collateralinterlocutory the United

order doctrine petitioners

and the Federal Bureau of

States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that pursuant to the case Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), for evaluating survive dismiss, flexible a whether motion for a to a complaint is sufficient to called

Ocasio-Hernndez v. Fortuo-Burset clarified the standard

that they took series of against him in connection confinement conditions harsh

after separation from the general prison population. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state sufficient allegations to show their own clearly and the involvement in established conduct Court motion. of true, the the District their all as

plausibility

standard, which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with contexts render

that the

some in where the

factual those such claim

unconstitutional denied Accepting complaint

allegations

amplification is needed to plausible. The court found

Government's appeal did not present one of those contexts requiring

allegations in respondent's court held that it cannot be said that there [is] no
3

amplification.
lorem ipsum :: [Date]

As a consequence, it held Iqbal's pleading adequate to allege Government officials' personal involvement in discriminatory decisions which, if true, violated clearly established constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and determined that the Second Circuit has jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity grounds, and that Iqbal failed to state a claim upon a relief can be granted. The Court made an interesting statement: That promise provides especially cold comfort in this pleading context, where we are impelled to give real content to the concept of qualified immunity for high-level officials who must be neither deterred nor detracted from the vigorous performance of their duties. Because respondent's complaint is deficient under Rule 8, he is not entitled to discovery, cabined or otherwise.

We decline respondent's invitation to relax the pleading requirements on the ground that the Court of Appeals promises petitioners minimally intrusive discovery...

lorem ipsum :: [Date]

TheIusLex
ValenzuelaAlvarado, LLC

Vol. 1, July 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court further concluded that, Iqbal failed to state a claim upon a relief can be granted. In essence, the Supreme Court concluded that Iqbal failed to plead sufficient facts to state claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination; and that the complaint challenged neither constitutionality of detainee's arrest nor his initial detention but rather policy of holding post-September 11th detainees once they were

categorized as of high interest. Thus, the complaint had to contain facts plausibly showing that officials purposefully adopted policy of so classifying detainees because of their race, religion, or national origin. This pleadings controversy appeared in

The Pleadings scenario has changed considerably in Ocasio Hernndez. In fact, the First Circuit adopted Plaintiffs counsel analogy that: [A]s we have often
emphasized, one rarely finds smoking gun evidence in a political discrimination case.[].
App. No. 09-2207, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6763, *39-40 (1st Cir. April 1, 2011).

Puerto Rico, which thereafter was decided and clarified by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In Ocasio-Hernndez v. FortuoBurset, 639 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D.P.R. 2009), the plaintiffs who

contended that they had been dismissed because of their membership in one political party, alleged that every one of the 14 individuals who were immediately hired as replacements were members of the opposing political party, which had recently taken power. The district court held that the allegation was insufficient because "[p]laintiffs do not provide any factual allegations to indicate how

they are aware of their replacements' political affiliations,

(continued)

lorem ipsum :: [Date]

or of the immediacy of their replacements." The district judge also rejected the allegations that the plaintiffs had been replaced by members of the other party because "plaintiffs do not identify who replaced any or all of the plaintiffs, nor the date of the replacements; plaintiffs merely

present a conclusory statement that this occurred as to all of the plaintiffs." The complaint also alleged that all of the individual defendants had questioned each of the plaintiffs regarding when they were hired, a quaere apparently calculated to identify the plaintiffs party affiliation based on who was in power when they were hired. This allegation too, was dismissed as insufficient. The

district court added that: "[T]he allegation that all of the defendants asked all of the plaintiffs about how and when they began working [at the government job in question] is a generic allegation, made without reference to specific facts that might make it 'plausible on its face.'" The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court decision. In Ocasio-Hernndez v.

Fortuo Burset, App. No. 09-2207, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6763 (1st Cir. April 1, 2011), the appeals court concluded in sum that the district court incorrectly applied the notice pleading standard, since under FRCP 8(a)(2) a complaint need only contain enough detail to provide a defendant with fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. It added that the complaint contains straightforward factual allegations describing the parties' opposing political affiliations, including that the [d]efendants all belong to the NPP, that [e]ach and all plaintiffs are members of the Popular Democratic Party .. or are believed to be a member of the PDP, and that each plaintiff was not a known member of the NPP. The First Circuit added: [O]n review of a motion to dismiss, we must accept these allegations as true. Additionally, the defendants do not contest that the plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the termination of the plaintiffs' employment at La Fortaleza constitutes an adverse employment action. In essence, the First Circuit Court concluded:

1.

Allegations of discrete factual events such as

defendants questioning the plaintiffs and replacing them with new employees were not conclusory. Moreover, factual allegations in a complaint do not need to contain the level of specificity sought by the district court;
6 lorem ipsum :: [Date]

2.

Additionally, the district court erred when it failed to evaluate the cumulative effect of the factual

allegations. The First Circuit also rejected the district courts lead to the conclusion formulation to the extent it implied a stronger logical connection than that demanded by plausibility. Thus, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the plaintiffs pleaded adequate factual material to support a reasonable inference that the defendants had knowledge of their political beliefs.

3.

As to causation, the district court erred in concluding that the allegations of participation by the

governor, first lady and chief of staff were inadequate because they relied entirely on the positions they held with the mansion, and no additional allegations tied them to the deprivation of the plaintiffs constitutional rights. According to the complaint, the governor was the nominating authority at the mansion and signed an order authorizing their terminations. The plaintiffs also alleged that he personally participated in questioning them about how and when they began working at the mansion. The governor also stated that those terminated did not vote for him. The first lady allegedly oversaw maintenance and domestic staff, interacted with the plaintiffs and made disparaging remarks about the PDP. It was also alleged that the chief of staff was responsible for answering press questions regarding specific terminations at the mansion, and that he lied about the reasons for the terminations.

lorem ipsum :: [Date]

4.

Turning to the question

of discriminatory motive, the appeals concluded court court that and the the again district the

erred, in

that

allegations complaint

plaintiffs the

supported

reasonable inference that the defendants terminate their decision to

employment

was substantially motivated by political affiliation. Here, the political affiliation of employees was commonly shared and discussed while rumors spread concerning a list of PDP-

affiliated workers who were to be terminated. alleged Also, that the the

plaintiffs

defendants contributed to the politically charged atmosphere by repeatedly inquiring into the political affiliation of employees and by making disparaging remarks about the prior

TheIusLex
Valenzuela-Alvarado, LLC Vol. 1, July 2011
Valenzuela-Alvarado, LLC, published seasonally, is intended to provide general information concerning legal matters. It is not to be considered as, and does not constitute, either legal advice or solicitation of any prospective client. Readers should not act upon information presented in this publication without individual professional counseling. An attorney-client relationship with Valenzuela-Alvarado, LLC cannot be established by reading or responding to this information; such a relationship may be formed only by a specific and explicit agreement with Valenzuela-Alvarado, LLC. The contents of TheIusLex may not be reproduced, transmitted, or distributed without the express written consent of Valenzuela-Alvarado, LLC. Further information on the matters addressed in this issue, additional copies or subscriptions, translation to Spanish of the information included, suggested topics for future TheIusLex or address updates should be communicated to the Editor in Chief, Jos Enrico Valenzuela-Alvarado, through the listed telephone number or e-mail address.

administration. In contrast to the plaintiffs treatment, NPPaffiliated promoted employees to were

high-level

positions of trust following the change Finally, pointed statements defendants acknowledgement in the to administration. plaintiffs the by again public the an of the

made as

political motivation behind the administrations decisions. 8 employment

lorem ipsum :: [Date]