Source: cases/15usc1/f3d-922-136-llm-bar-exam-v-barbri.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_922/0136_01/index.html
Upon review, we conclude that the District Court properly granted Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss because the FAC does not state a plausible claim to relief. We therefore adopt the District Court's discussion in all respects.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/922/0136-01 name LLM Bar Exam, LLC v. Barbri, Inc. cite 922 F.3d 136 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit date 2019-04-25 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_922/0136_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl sha1=736b28a528bb8f9e51d1d2f32bf351269351f5ec chars=7071 opinion op : per-curiam @0..7071 controlling party p1 : LLM Bar Exam, LLC (LBE; bar-review provider for foreign LL.M. graduates, plaintiff) v. Barbri, Inc. and the defendant law schools theory t1 : conspiracy between Barbri and the law schools (and among the law schools) to give Barbri campus access and to exclude LBE from campus law 15usc1 role applied posture civil; bar-review company for foreign LL.M. students sued a rival bar-review company and law schools under §§ 1 and 2 and RICO, alleging a conspiracy to exclude it from law school campuses; district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); CA2 affirmed per curiam, adopting the district court's reasoning result claimant-lost element agreement : not-satisfied [pleaded] party p1 theory t1 route inference-from-conduct pattern campus bans of a bar-review vendor by several law schools; the complaint's own exhibits show each school reacting to student complaints rule @5416..5577 [quoted] | "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." fact @2595..2816 [supports] | At various times between 2010 and 2016, LBE was banned from campus or otherwise prevented from "tabling, advertising, renting classrooms and selling its product to Foreign LL.M. Students" by all the defendant law schools. fact @2844..3087 [supports] | LBE alleges some of the schools decided to suspend LBE from campus "without any reason or explanation," id . at 20; see also id . at 45, 49, and other schools banned LBE due to the interference and negative comments of a Barbri representative. fact @3088..3296 [cuts-against] | Other allegations and the exhibits attached to the FAC suggest, however, that the law schools took action against LBE when administrators became concerned in response to a variety of complaints from students. fact @6849..6990 [cuts-against absent] | As the District Court noted, the FAC does not indicate whether the alleged agreements between Barbri and the law schools are oral or written. held @5692..5925 | Upon review, we conclude that the District Court properly granted Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss because the FAC does not state a plausible claim to relief. We therefore adopt the District Court's discussion in all respects. gloss The per curiam gives no § 1 analysis of its own; it adopts LLM Bar Exam, LLC v. Barbri, Inc., 271 F.Supp.3d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), which found the complaint, "shorn of its internal contradictions and conclusory assertions," did not plausibly support the core conspiracy claim. ? route: the reasoning is in the adopted district court opinion, not in this text. `inference-from-conduct` rests on the panel's own contrast between the parallel campus bans and the student complaints that independently explain them; `_pleading` (conclusory allegations) is the other candidate. ? holding: one sentence disposes of the § 1, § 2 and RICO claims together; that the failure is on the agreement element is taken from the panel's description of the district court's ruling on the "core claim that Barbri and the law schools conspired."