enforced as written, and its correction should be left to the Legislature, the body that created it. Said again: if the plain words of a statute fail to achieve the Legislature’s goals, it is for that branch of government to fix its own mistakes. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. For affirmance—Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE and HOENS—6. For reversal—RIVERA-SOTO—1. 1 Any attempt to differentiate between a complaint and the facts giving rise to a complaint is utter sophistry; a complaint without facts is meaningless. See, e.g., R. 4:5-2 (requiring that any “pleading ... shall contain a statement of the facts on which the claim is based”); see also Spring Motors Distribs., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 191 N.J.Super. 22, 29-30, 465 A.2d 530 (App.Div.1983) (<HOLDING>), affd in part and rev’d in part on other
holding that a complaint must contain only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face holding that while the complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations it must contain more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim and must state a claim that is plausible on its face holding that to be adequate a complaint must contain a statement of facts on which a claim is based showing that the pleader is entitled to relief holding that a plaintiffs complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face   that is factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged holding that a complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face