Exxonmobil Oil Corporation v. Gasprom Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Gasprom, Inc. (“Gasprom”) appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Exx-onMobil Oil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

1. The district court did not err in granting ExxonMobil summary judgment on Gasprom’s purported counterclaim for breach of contract. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that each claim in a pleading be supported by “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A claim complies with Rule 8(a)(2) only when the claim is stated with sufficient particularity to “ ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 , 122 S.Ct. 992 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Under this rule, a claim must contain “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Here, Gas-prom failed to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) because it did not give ExxonMobil…