Difference between revisions of "Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly"
m (Undo revision 769826 by Pbafreincrqvnfhpxf (Talk)) |
(improved) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In '''''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly''''', | + | In '''''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly''''', 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] explained the standard that a plaintiff must meet in order to state a claim under section 1 of the [[Sherman Act]]. The Court held that a Section 1 claim must have "enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made."<ref>''Id.'' at 556.</ref> The Court emphasized that "an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice."<ref>''Id.''</ref> Rather, there must be plausible grounds to infer an agreement.<ref>''Id.'' at 556-57.</ref> |
Expressed another way, the Court held that to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, plaintiff must set forth factual allegations that rise above the speculative level. | Expressed another way, the Court held that to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, plaintiff must set forth factual allegations that rise above the speculative level. | ||
| − | The Court gave as an example that "parallel behavior that would probably not result from chance, coincidence, independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence unaided by an advance understanding among the parties."<ref>''Id.'' at | + | The Court gave as an example that "parallel behavior that would probably not result from chance, coincidence, independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence unaided by an advance understanding among the parties."<ref>''Id.'' at 1557.</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | ''Twombly'' has been interpreted to abrogate many Circuit court precedents, but its holding rested on its finding that "nothing contained in the complaint invests either the action or inaction alleged with a plausible suggestion of conspiracy." ''Id.'' at 566. The decision expressly stated that: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{cquote|[W]e do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Id.'' at 570. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 14:48, July 4, 2012
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court explained the standard that a plaintiff must meet in order to state a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court held that a Section 1 claim must have "enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made."[1] The Court emphasized that "an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice."[2] Rather, there must be plausible grounds to infer an agreement.[3]
Expressed another way, the Court held that to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, plaintiff must set forth factual allegations that rise above the speculative level.
The Court gave as an example that "parallel behavior that would probably not result from chance, coincidence, independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence unaided by an advance understanding among the parties."[4]
Twombly has been interpreted to abrogate many Circuit court precedents, but its holding rested on its finding that "nothing contained in the complaint invests either the action or inaction alleged with a plausible suggestion of conspiracy." Id. at 566. The decision expressly stated that:
| “ | [W]e do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed. | ” |
Id. at 570.