Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

Citation. 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)

Brief Fact Summary.

Subscribers to local telephone and high-speed internet services (Plaintiffs) brought a suit against incumbent local exchanges carriers (Defendants) for conspiracy to stop competition in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a claim for conspiracy in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act must allege facts, taken as true, plausibly suggesting a conspiracy.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Such evidence could show 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.

View Full Point of Law

Subscribers to local telephone and high-speed internet services (Plaintiffs) brought a suit against incumbent local exchanges carriers (Defendants) for conspiracy to stop competition in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.

Issue.

Did the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead a claim that Defendants conspired to preclude competition in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act?

Held.

No, Plaintiffs complaint failed to plausibly allege conspiracy between the Defendants. The complaint is dismissed.

Dissent.

Justice Stevens

Justice Stevens argues that the Court should not apply a plausibility standard to complaints. He argues it is contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, case precedent, and unjustly increases the cost of bringing a complaint.

Discussion.

Distinguishing Conley v. Gibson and Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., the Court clarifies the Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standard requires factual allegations that plausibly raise a right to relief above a speculation level. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts alleging conspiracy under § 1 of the Sherman Act, because the complaint only demonstrated parallel conduct not a concerted effort of conspiracy.