Getting a Clue: Two Stage Complaint Pleading as a Solution to the Conley–Iqbal Dilemma
By Ray Worthy Campbell. 
Consider these scenarios:
While a commercial jet is in flight, both engines catch fire. Lacking propulsion, the plane crashes. All aboard are killed.
A consumer brings home a new appliance. When it is first plugged in and operated, it explodes. The consumer is seriously injured.
A fire breaks out in a crowded nightclub. Between the fire, the smoke and the ensuing panic, dozens of patrons die.
Prior to Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the plaintiff’s path in each of these scenarios was clear: name every possibly culpable defendant and let discovery sort them out. Under the liberal pleading rules of Conley v. Gibson, so long as the defendant had fair notice of what the claim was about, and so long as the defendant’s connection to the harmful event was not too attenuated, litigation could proceed.
The complaint naming these multiple defendants typically relied on conclusory allegations. While the practice of naming all proximate parties—and often drawing innocent bystanders into expensive litigation—had its drawbacks, this was nonetheless understood to be in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the Rules. For example, Form 12, which satisfies federal requirements pursuant to Rule 84, provides a form for “When The Plaintiff Does Not Know Who Is Responsible” which includes conclusory allegations of negligence against multiple parties. [keep reading]