• May 19, 2010

At the risk of repetition, again Minnesota Litigator highlights how Minnesota civil litigation is changing (in the federal courts, anyhow) thanks to recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, widely known as Twombly and Iqbal (previous Minnesota Litigator posts touching on the cases are here).

One area where Minnesota Litigator, as counsel for the FDIC, learned firsthand of the reach of the new pleading standards is in the context of pleading successor liability.   Certainly, one cannot simply plead that Corporation B is the alter ego of Corporation A and survive a motion to dismiss by Corporation B (if one ever could have gotten away with pleading only that).  Moreover, it is possible it would be insufficient to plead, in addition, that the corporations are owned by family members and have all of the same employees.  More “particularized” pleadings may be required…

U.S. Magistrate Judge Raymond Erickson rejected a proposed amended pleading as insufficient under the requirements of Iqbal/Twombly, but granted plaintiff leave to amend to give the plaintiff another chance to supplement the proposed amended complaint to meet the new heightened pleading standard.  Once done and resubmitted to the Court, Judge Erickson analyzed Minnesota corporate successor liability, the proposed amended pleading, and granted the motion.  Judge Erickson’s well-known thorough analysis is evident in the opinion; the decision is a useful primer on the current state of corporate successor liability under Minnesota law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *