Massachusetts SJC Adopts Twombly Interpretation of Its Own State Pleading Rules

Per Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 888 N.E.2d 879 (Mass. June 13, 2008):

The standard for reviewing adequacy of complaints. While we have concluded that the plaintiffs' complaint is insufficient on the basis of the standard described in Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98, 360 N.E.2d 870 (1977), see note 7, supra, we take the opportunity to adopt the refinement of that standard that was recently articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, --- U.S. ----, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). See Eigerman v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 450 Mass. 281, 286 n. 7, 877 N.E.2d 1258 (2007) (noting that this court may consider adopting Bell Atl. Corp. standard for evaluating adequacy of complaint challenged by motion to dismiss for failure to state claim pursuant to rule 12[b][6] ).

. . .

We agree with the Supreme Court's analysis of the Conley language, which is the language quoted in our decision in Nader v. Citron, supra, and we follow the Court's lead in retiring its use. The clarified standard for rule 12(b)(6) motions adopted here will apply to any amended complaint that the plaintiffs may file.