Sauseda v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that under Iqbal and Twombly a plaintiff is required “to plead enough ‘factual matter’ to raise a ‘plausible’ inference of wrongdoing”
• stating that “the availability of other explanations—even more likely explanations—does not bar the door to discovery”
• noting that “[t]hese ‘naked assertions 18 devoid of further factual enhancement’ contribute nothing to the sufficiency of the complaint.”
• \[T]he mere existence of more likely alternative explanations does not automatically entitle a defendant to dismissal\
• \[T]he mere existence of more likely alternative explanations does not automatically entitle a defendant to dismissal.\
• “The plausibility of an inference depends on a host of considerations, including common sense and the strength of competing explanations for the defendant’s conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).