Whether the liberal notice pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ceases to apply at the summary judgment stage

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Sixth Circuit’s published opinion established a new heighted pleading standard, intruded on the sovereign rights of the State of Michigan, and uprooted the carefully calibrated balance between the distinct roles of judges and juries. The opinion dismissed half of the issues on appeal because the complaint was not amended to plead facts and theories with particularity by the summary judgment stage. Fundamentally altering the rights and obligations of the parties, the opinion engaged in an unsolicited redrafting of the contract and imposed a heightened burden for tobaccorelated nuisance claims under Michigan law. The opinion also placed a rigid ceiling on claims, which is so low that the disabled enjoy lesser protections under the Fair Housing Act than guaranteed to prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: 1. Whether the liberal notice pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ceases to apply at the summary judgment stage. 2. Whether federal courts of appeals have the authority to adjudicate substantive matters not at issue and to establish common law rules without consideration of governing state law. 3. Whether the reasonableness inquiry for claims under the Fair Housing Act is solely a question of law to be decided by courts instead of juries.