Difference between revisions of "Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly"
m (Undo revision 769826 by Pbafreincrqvnfhpxf (Talk)) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In '''''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly''''', 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (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 [[ | + | In '''''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly''''', 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (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 1965.</ref> The Court emphasized that "an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice."<ref>''Id.'' at 1966.</ref> Rather, there must be plausible grounds to infer an agreement.<ref>''Id.'' at 1965.</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. | ||
Revision as of 18:08, April 17, 2010
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (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]