I know many of you are tired of discussing Iqbal, but hey -- would you rather keep talking about Spencer?
But thanks to a tipster, here's a real-life, not overstated example of Iqbal gone terribly wrong at the district court level, requiring correction by the 11th Circuit (in an unpublished opinion):
The allegations in Watts’ complaint are not merely “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements” of a Title VII claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Nor are they “legal conclusions.” “They are non-conclusory descriptions of specific, discrete facts of the who, what, when, and where variety.” Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2013). They provide specific facts that, if true, plausibly show that Watts is entitled to relief. That is all that Rule 8 requires, and the district court erred by requiring more. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short an plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .”).In other words, district court -- heal thyself.