[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4054 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4054

To restore the law governing pleading and pleading motions that existed 
before the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bell 
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. 
                            Ct. 1937 (2009).


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 22, 2010

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
To restore the law governing pleading and pleading motions that existed 
before the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bell 
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. 
                            Ct. 1937 (2009).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States 
        in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), decided 
        on May 21, 2007, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), 
        are inconsistent with--
                    (A) fundamental premises underlying the Federal 
                Rules of Civil Procedure;
                    (B) the purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil 
                Procedure;
                    (C) the previous decisions of the Supreme Court 
                interpreting those rules, including Swierkiewicz v. 
                Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002); and
                    (D) congressional expectations formed and relied 
                upon over a period of more than 70 years;
            (2) the law governing pleading and pleading motions should 
        be restored to the status quo before those decisions, pending 
        thorough study by appropriate institutions through processes 
        that are open and inclusive;
            (3) except when provided for by statute, changes in the 
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--
                    (A) should occur--
                            (i) through the process for formally 
                        amending those rules established under section 
                        2073 of title 28, United States Code;
                            (ii) under the procedures prescribed by the 
                        Judicial Conference of the United States; and
                            (iii) subject to prior review by Congress 
                        under section 2074(a) of title 28, United 
                        States Code; and
                    (B) should not occur through judicial decisions;
            (4) time is of the essence because the imposition of 
        heightened pleading requirements creates the risk of--
                    (A) irreparable injury to litigants who lack the 
                information or resources to comply with the recent 
                pleading decisions of the Supreme Court; and
                    (B) the frustration of important public policies 
                underlying Federal statutes that the enacting Congress 
                intended to be enforced through private civil 
                litigation;
            (5) before May 21, 2007, some lower courts disregarded 
        decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the Federal Rules 
        of Civil Procedure relating to pleading and pleading motions, 
        and undermined the system of notice pleading intended by those 
        rules and decisions, by insisting on heightened pleading 
        requirements;
            (6) as the Supreme Court held in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 
        N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), and Leatherman v. Tarrant County, 
        507 U.S. 163 (1993), the appropriate procedure for disposing of 
        factually unmeritorious claims is summary judgment; and
            (7) the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil 
        Procedure should not be based in whole or part on the 
        heightened standards in the Private Securities Litigation 
        Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 77k et seq.; Public Law 104-67) 
        or on the special circumstances that prompted Congress to adopt 
        that Act.

SEC. 3. NOTICE PLEADING RESTORATION.

    (a) In General.--Except as expressly provided by an Act of Congress 
enacted before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act 
(including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 
U.S.C. 77k et seq.; Public Law 104-67) and decisions interpreting that 
Act) or by an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
effective on or after that date, the law governing a dismissal, 
striking, or judgment described under subsection (b) shall be in 
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by 
the Supreme Court of the United States in decisions issued before May 
20, 2007.
    (b) Dismissals, Strikings, or Judgments.--A dismissal, striking, or 
judgment referred to under subsection (a) is--
            (1) a dismissal or striking of all or any part of a 
        pleading containing a claim for failure to state a claim, 
        indefiniteness, or insufficiency; or
            (2) a judgment on the pleadings.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and apply 
to--
            (1) any action pending in any court of the United States on 
        that date; and
            (2) any action filed on or after that date.
                                 <all>