Opinion ID: 1445085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Majority's Heightened Pleading Standard

Text: The majority also erred by applying a heightened pleading standard to Plaintiffs' complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must only contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only `give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the ground upon which it rests.' Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). [1] In the instant case, Plaintiffs alleged that [t]he Sign Regulations require citizens, organizations, and businesses to seek the prior approval of the Township officials prior to posting signs. They fail, however, to circumscribe the time in which government officials must approve or deny requests for permission to do so. Furthermore, Plaintiffs expressly stated that the challenged regulations include all those sections of the Resolution that define [or] otherwise regulate signs. Based on this complaint, the Township had fair notice that the entirety of the sign regulations contained in a particular resolution were under challenge, and that they were being challenged as an unconstitutional prior restraint. The majority, however, applied a heightened pleading standard, holding that even though Plaintiffs' complaint expressly challenges all parts of Defendant's sign ordinances, this language must be ignored because it was not contained in the substantive counts of the complaint. Midwest Media, 503 F.3d at 465. The majority cites no case law to support its unorthodox proposition that only the substantive counts of a complaint should be read by this Court, and it provides no definition of the words substantive counts to allow future judges to determine which portions of a complaint should be ignored. Moreover, the majority's unusual holding conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in Erickson v. Pardus , and thus should be reviewed by the en banc Court.