UPDATES & ANALYSIS

2.27

Iowa Supreme Court Rejects New Federal Standard for Motion to Dismiss; Refuses to Adopt “Plausibility” Test

by Ryan Koopmans | February 27, 2012

By Ryan Koopmans

The Iowa Supreme Court recently weighed in on the new federal standard to survive a motion to dismiss. 

In a tandem of rulings handed down in 2007 and 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court announced and defined a new “plausibility standard” for surviving a motion to dismiss in federal court.  The standard, announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, requires a complaint “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”  A claim is plausible, according to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”  The plausibility standard is a tougher test to pass; it replaces a test that granted dismissal only when the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts.

Following Twombly and Iqbal, a number of state courts have been invited to adopt the plausibility standard.  Most have declined, and Iowa is the latest to join that group.  In a ruling handed down last week, the Iowa Supreme Court reaffirmed the “well-established standard” that a motion to dismiss will be granted only “when it appears to a certainty that a plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any statement of facts that could be proved in support of the claims asserted.”  Its reasoning was primarily twofold.  First, Iowa’s court system is not “facing the sort of systemic pressures that contributed to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly and Iqbal.”  Second, “such an important change” should be made, if at all, via the rulemaking process in order to allow consideration of input from all interested parties. 

The Iowa Supreme Court case is Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution, Inc. v. Iowa Educators Corporation.

SHARE

Tags:

FEATURED POSTS

Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Immunity in Horse-Drawn Mower Injury Case

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a personal injury claim arising from an accident involving a horse-drawn sickle mower in a unanimous decision filed on June 12, 2026. In Shafer v. Santana, the Court held that a farmer operating a horse drawn sickle mower was engaged in the “domesticated animal activity” of driving under Iowa’s Domesticated Animal Activities Act, despite the fact that the horses were briefly stopped when the injury occurred.

Iowa Supreme Court affirms child endangerment convictions and extends emotional harm theory to siblings

In a 5–2 decision filed on June 12, 2026, the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Gibbs upheld a mother’s three child endangerment convictions under Iowa Code section 726.6(1)(a). Chief Justice Christensen wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices McDonald, Oxley, McDermott, and May. Justice Mansfield filed a partial dissent, joined by Justice Waterman, concurring as to two convictions but dissenting as to the third.

EDITORIAL TEAM

ABOUT

On Brief: Iowa’s Appellate Blog is devoted to appellate litigation with a focus on the Iowa Supreme Court, the Iowa Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

RELATED BLOGS

Related Links

ARCHIVES