COLUMBUS — The Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral arguments Wednesday in Bethel Oil & Gas versus Redbird Development, a case that could redefine how civil complaints must be drafted in Ohio.

At the center of the dispute is whether Ohio should continue to apply its traditional “notice pleading” standard or adopt a “plausibility requirement,” which is used in federal courts.

Chad Ziepfel, an attorney from Taft Stettinius & Hollister, representing Redbird Development, urged the court to interpret Ohio Civil Rule 8 as requiring plaintiffs to plead enough factual content to “show” they are entitled to relief.”

“Plausibility pleading simply requires plaintiffs to show that they’re entitled to relief,” Ziepfel told the justices. “That’s what Rule 8 says, and that requires you to plead at least some factual content.”

Ziepfel also cited the Twomby and Iqbal cases as backing this reasoning.

What Ohio Rule 8 requires

¯ Ohio Civil Rule 8, section A directs that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the party is entitled to relief.”

¯ Rule 8, section E calls for “concise, direct averments,” which the court noted are traditionally defined as factual statements.

For nearly 50 years, Ohio courts have applied the rule under the 1975 O’Brien versus University Community Tenants Union decision, which allows a complaint to survive dismissal unless “it appears beyond doubt” that no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief.

What Twombly and Iqbal require

In Bell Atlantic versus Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft versus Iqbal (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court maintained:

¯ A complaint must allege facts that make a claim plausible, not merely possible.

¯ Conclusory assertions without factual enhancement are insufficient.

¯ Courts may dismiss implausible claims before discovery begins.

Ziefel told the justices that several states modeled after the federal rules already follow that approach.

“We don’t see a parade of horribles in federal court,” he argued. “What we see are better complaints…that allow cases to move along in a more efficient, orderly manner.”

Several justices questioned how adopting the federal standard would work in state courts.

Justice Jennifer Brunner raised concerns about applying a standard developed in complex litigation to routine cases, asking whether it would be fair to impose these rules on something like a car accident dispute between two drivers.

Ziepfel responded that Rule 8 should apply uniformly, arguing that creating different standards for different case types “would create more problems than it would solve.”

Attorney Jamie Bordas of Bordas & Bordas, representing Bethel Oil & Gas, defended Ohio’s long-standing notice pleading system and argued that any change should come through the court’s rulemaking process, not judicial reinterpretation.

“This case law has been in existence for 50-plus years in the state of Ohio,” Bordas said. “If Rule 8 is to be addressed or changed and 50 years of justice in this state is to be discarded, it should be done through the rulemaking process.”

Bordas said the plausibility standard would hurt access to justice, especially in cases where critical information lies with the defendant and that evidence should be tested during discovery, not at the pleading stage.

Bordas also noted the difference between federal and state courts, including resources.

“This is going to create a quagmire of motions to dismiss at the trial court level,” he warned.

Justice Patrick DeWine asked Bordas whether, under notice pleading, a plaintiff could allege harm from “every well in the United States” and still reach discovery. Bordas said such a complaint “could” meet the standard but would ultimately be tested through summary judgment after evidence is developed.

Moving forward the Supreme Court justices promised that the information presented would be taken into consideration and that a decision would be forthcoming in the next few months.