In Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W. 2d 598 (Minn. 2014) (No. A13-0742), the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the plausibility pleading standard announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) did not apply to civil pleadings in Minnesota state court.  In this case, plaintiff sued defendant mortgagor, seeking to vacate a foreclosure sale because of ineffective service of foreclosure-related documents.  Applying the Twombly pleading standard, the trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that it failed to plead facts giving rise to a “plausible” claim for relief.  The court of appeals reversed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling.  The court held that although the language of Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01 was identical to its federal counterpart, FRCP 8(a)(2), the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Twombly and Iqbal were merely instructive, not binding.  Determining that it had the power to regulate pleading, practice and procedure in Minnesota state courts, the court examined the plain language of Minnesota’s Rule 8 and concluded that it unambiguously means that a claim is sufficient if it is possible, on any evidence which might be produced, to grant the relief demanded.  The court reasoned that the rule did not contain the word “plausible” or any variation of it, and to read such a requirement into the rule would violate a basic rule of statutory interpretation.