In Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the “plausibility” pleading standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), which overruled the Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), “beyond doubt”/”no set of facts” standard. Now, in order to survive a motion to dismiss in Wisconsin courts, a pleading will need to “plausibly” state a claim.
This decision was not Wisconsin’s first departure from Conley‘s pleading standard. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recognized long ago that Wisconsin’s pleading standard was stricter than Conley‘s “all inclusive” test. In Wilson v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 Wis. 2d 310, 317, 326-27, 274 N.W.2d 679 (1979), the Court affirmed dismissal of a negligence complaint, without leave to amend, under Wisconsin’s pleading standard.
However, a full-fledged adoption of Twombly was unexpected in Data Key, not only because (as the Chief Justice recognized in dissent) Twombly was neither briefed nor argued before the Supreme Court, but also because just four months before Data Key, the Court unanimously quoted with approval Conley and pre-Wilson Court of Appeals precedent when the Court was describing principles of notice pleading in Wisconsin. CED Properties, LLC v. City of Oshkosh, 2014 WI 10.
Data Key was a lawsuit by shareholders alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The Court described the business-judgment rule as a procedural and substantive rule of law that a court is required to consider at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The Court made clear that shareholders will have a difficult time surviving a motion to dismiss in similar suits unless they plead around the business-judgment rule and plead a “plausible” claim.
The likely effect of Data Key outside of shareholder suits is less clear because, as the Chief Justice wrote in dissent, “no one is sure what Twombly means.” As Twombly did in federal court, Data Key is sure in Wisconsin courts to lead to many disputes over whether complaints have “plausibly” stated a claim.
Foley & Lardner LLP and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP represented Permira Advisors LLC, Raphael Holding Co., and Raphael Acquisition Corp. in this case. The author, however, had no role in the representation.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.