Which statement best describes the pleading standard under Rule 8?

• A. A detailed, evidentiary complaint with receipts.
• B. A short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief, with sufficient facts to show plausible grounds for relief.
• C. A motion rather than complaint; requires only a conclusion.
• D. A full recital of every fact and law to be relied on.

Answer: (B)

Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and it must include enough facts to show a plausible basis for relief. This means you don’t need evidentiary detail, receipts, or a full development of every fact up front. The complaint should put the defendant on notice of what happened and why the law supports relief, with enough factual context to render the claim plausible—not just possible or speculative. After the modern pleading standards from Twombly and Iqbal, the facts must be enough to overcome a mere possibility and show a facially plausible claim, while avoiding unnecessary legal conclusions.

So the correct description matches: a concise, plain statement of what happened and why it gives rise to relief, with enough factual content to make the claim plausibly actionable. The other options describe overly detailed or evidentiary pleadings, a motion in place of a complaint, or a full recital of every fact and law—none of which aligns with Rule 8’s rule of notice pleading.