441 Pa. 474, 272 A.2d 895, 899 (1971). Dorman asserts that Dayco’s argument rests on application of the stricter standard of review applicable to fraud claims, while the pleading requirement for “intent” is more liberal. While Dorman is correct in its position that the pleading standard for intent is “more liberal” than the pleading standard for fraud, Dayco’s argument does not apply the incorrect standard of review; rather, the defendant flags for the Court the recognition that pleading requirements have increased in recent years under Iqbal and Twombly. Dorman has done little more in its complaint than to plead the elements of the claim, supplemented by various conelusory statements. These allegations are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (<HOLDING>). The assertions by Dorman that Dayco’s
holding that mere recitation of bare elements of a cause of action is insufficient to survive dismissal recognizing the cause of action holding that threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient recognizing that conclusory statements do not preserve an issue for appeal