Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:10-cv-00749-DAE-KSC Document 78 Filed 06/29/12 Page 10 of 31 PagelD #: <br /> 596 <br /> A complaint need not include detailed facts to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) <br /> motion to dismiss. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). <br /> In providing grounds for relief, however, a plaintiff must do more than recite the <br /> formulaic elements of a cause of action. See id. at 556-57; see also McGlinchy v. <br /> Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988) ("[C]onclusory allegations <br /> without more are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a <br /> claim.") (citation omitted). "The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the <br /> allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions," and <br /> courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual <br /> allegation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotations <br /> and citations omitted). Accordingly, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a <br /> cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. <br /> (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Rather, "[a] claim has facial plausibility when <br /> the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable <br /> inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 1949 <br /> (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Factual allegations that only permit the court <br /> to infer "the mere possibility of misconduct" do not show that the pleader is <br /> entitled to relief. Id. at 1950. <br /> 10 <br />