7. State courts are not required to follow either the Federal Rules or federal judicial standards governing the sufficiency of a complaint. However, as Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, about half of the states did embrace the Conley “no set of facts” standard. State courts so far have not unanimously rejected or adopted the Twombly or Iqbal standards.

See McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, 169 Wash. 2d 96, 233 P.3d 861 (Wash. 2010) (declining to apply plausibility standard and explaining that the federal approach “is predicated on policy determinations specific to the federal trial courts”); Sisney v. Best Inc., 754 N.W.2d 804, rehearing denied (S.D. 2008) (adopting Twombly pleading standard for state court pleadings); Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 184 Vt. 1, 955 A.2d 1082 (2008) (rejecting Twomblyand retaining Conley standard for state court pleadings); Cullen v. Auto–Owners Insurance Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 189 P.3d 344 (2008) (rejecting Twombly and Conley standards and retaining unique Arizona state pleading requirements). Will these variegated pleading standards contribute to forum shopping that may interfere with the fair administration of the law?

Compare Chen, Note—Following the Leader, Twombly, Pleading Standards, and Procedural Uniformity, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 1431 (2008), with Michalski, Tremors of Things to Come: The Great Split Between Federal and State Pleading Standards, 120 Yale L.J. Online 109(2010).