The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s pleading had failed to allege that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that allegedly existed. The First Circuit reversed the dismissal after noting that the complaint was plainly modeled on Form 11, which disclosed the date, place, and time of the alleged tort as well as delineating the nature of the dangerous condition and the injuries sustained. The First Circuit stated that plausibility pleading “properly takes into account whether discovery can reasonably be expected to fill any holes in the pleader’s case.” This is consistent with Twombly’s statement that the hallmark of plausibility is when a complaint contains “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence.” Where the defendant controls a material part of the information, then it is unreasonable to expect that plaintiff would have the information without discovery.…show more content… In Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Illinois, the Seventh Circuit recognized that all claims—including claims with potentially complex or costly litigation—must have some degree of plausibility to survive dismissal. The Seventh Circuit’s view that the Forms were insufficient stated:
[H]ow many facts are enough will depend on the type of case. In a complex antitrust or RICO case a fuller set of factual allegations than found in the sample complaints in the [C]ivil [R]ules’ Appendix of Forms may be necessary to show that the plaintiff’s claim is not “largely