Opinion ID: 176780
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stating a Claimthe Governing Law

Text: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a claim for relief contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A complaint may be dismissed to the extent that it fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). This Court reviews such a dismissal de novo. See Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d Cir.1996) (citation omitted). In doing so, we are constrained to `accept[] all factual allegations as true, and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.' Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002)). We are also constrained, however, to ascertain that the complaint contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). In other words, a complaint is not required to have detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id. at 1949 (internal quotation marks omitted). In its formulation of the Twombly-Iqbal requirements for a statement of claim, the Supreme Court has established the following order to be followed in determining whether the pleading is adequate: When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 1950 (emphasis supplied).
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint. Chambers, 282 F.3d at 153; Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 54 (2d Cir.1999). Where a document is not incorporated by reference, the court may neverless consider it where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect, thereby rendering the document integral to the complaint. Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d 391, 398 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Chambers, 282 F.3d at 152-53). However, even if a document is `integral' to the complaint, it must be clear on the record that no dispute exists regarding the authenticity or accuracy of the document. Faulkner v. Beer, 463 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir.2006). It must also be clear that there exist no material disputed issues of fact regarding the relevance of the document. Id.