Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)

 

RULE:

While a complaint attacked by a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.

FACTS:

 Respondent subscribers to local telephone and Internet services brought an action against petitioner local exchange carriers, alleging that the carriers engaged in parallel conduct to preclude competition in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1. The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that parallel business conduct allegations, taken alone, do not state a claim under § 1; plaintiffs must allege additional facts tending to exclude independent self-interested conduct as an explanation for the parallel actions. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, held that the subscribers sufficiently stated a claim.

ISSUE:

Did the respondent subscribers sufficiently state a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the subscribers' allegations that the carriers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to competition, absent some factual context suggesting agreement, were insufficient to state a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act. According to the Court, to state such a violation, allegations of parallel conduct were required to be placed in a factual context which raised a plausible suggestion of a preceding agreement rather than identical independent action. Further, the Court posited that the subscribers' complaint did not indicate that the carriers' resistance to competitors was anything more than the natural, unilateral reaction of each carrier which was intent on keeping its regional dominance. Moreover, the alleged anti-competitive conduct of the carriers itself indicated that a carrier's attempt to compete in another carrier's market would not be profitable.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.