Source: cases/15usc1/us-550-544-bell-atlantic-v-twombly.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_550/0544_01/index.html
we hold that stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made.
Hence, when allegations of parallel conduct are set out in order to make a § 1 claim, they must be placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action.
we agree with the District Court that nothing in the complaint intimates that the resistance to the upstarts was anything more than the natural, unilateral reaction of each ILEC intent on keeping its regional dominance.
Without more, parallel conduct does not suggest conspiracy, and a conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to show illegality.
Hence, a natural explanation for the noncompetition alleged is that the former Government-sanctioned monopolists were sitting tight, expecting their neighbors tp do the same thing.
Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.
casedsl 1 case /us/550/0544-01 name Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly cite 550 U.S. 544 (2007) court Supreme Court of the United States date 2007-05-21 url catalog/cases/us/volume_550/0544_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_550.jsonl sha1=7ad2dbac61c586368142bd2ea1085a6f237ad843 chars=60000 law 15usc1 role applied posture civil putative class action (telephone/internet subscribers v. incumbent local carriers); Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal reversed by CA2; certiorari on the standard for pleading a § 1 conspiracy through parallel conduct result claimant-lost element agreement : not-satisfied [pleaded] variant parallel-conduct/parallel-resistance-to-new-entrants theory conspiracy among the ILECs to thwart competitive entry by CLECs fact @3545..3686 [supports] | Plaintiffs say, first, that the ILECs “engaged in parallel conduct” in their respective service areas to inhibit the growth of upstart CLECs. fact @3714..3965 [supports] | Their actions allegedly included making unfair agreements with the CLECs for access to ILEC networks, providing inferior connections to the networks, overcharging, and billing in ways designed to sabotage the CLECs’ relations with their own customers. fact @25437..25629 [cuts-against absent] | To begin with, the complaint leaves no doubt that plaintiffs rest their § 1 claim on descriptions of parallel conduct and not on any independent allegation of actual agreement among the ILECs. rule @13170..13306 | we hold that stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made. rule @14304..14548 | Hence, when allegations of parallel conduct are set out in order to make a § 1 claim, they must be placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action. held @26876..27095 | we agree with the District Court that nothing in the complaint intimates that the resistance to the upstarts was anything more than the natural, unilateral reaction of each ILEC intent on keeping its regional dominance. gloss Each incumbent had its own unilateral incentive to resist entrants it was forced to subsidize, so parallel resistance does not suggest a prior agreement. element agreement : not-satisfied [pleaded] variant parallel-conduct/parallel-non-entry-into-each-others-territories theory agreement among the ILECs not to compete in one another's territories fact @4457..4557 [supports] | Second, the complaint charges agreements by the ILECs to refrain from competing against one another. fact @46961..47179 [supports] | The complaint quoted a reported statement of Qwest’s CEO, Richard Notebaert, to suggest that the ILECs declined to compete against each other despite recognizing that it “ ‘might be a good way to turn a quick dollar.’” rule @14125..14303 | Without more, parallel conduct does not suggest conspiracy, and a conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to show illegality. held @30554..30734 | Hence, a natural explanation for the noncompetition alleged is that the former Government-sanctioned monopolists were sitting tight, expecting their neighbors tp do the same thing. held @34127..34265 | Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed. gloss Obvious alternative explanation (legacy regulated monopolists staying on their own turf) defeats the inference; the Court notes sparse competition among territorial incumbents could suggest agreement in a traditionally unregulated, low-entry-barrier industry. element restraint : not-reached gloss Market allocation among competitors would be a classic per se restraint if an agreement were adequately alleged; nobody disputed the substantive law. element commerce : not-reached element injury : not-reached element standing : not-reached misfit The holding is primarily a PROCEDURAL rule (Rule 8 plausibility pleading, retiring Conley's "no set of facts") that is trans-substantive; the notation captures only its § 1 application, and the `rule` lines here are pleading standards rather than constructions of the statute. misfit Basis [pleaded] is defined as "allegations taken as true"; here the allegations were taken as true and still held insufficient — "not-satisfied [pleaded]" has to mean "inadequately pleaded", the opposite sense from a 12(b)(6) denial. A distinct basis (e.g. not-pleaded / implausible) would be clearer. misfit `fact` lines are the Court's paraphrase of complaint allegations. The decisive ABSENCE (no allegation of agreement beyond parallel conduct) is now tagged [cuts-against absent] for the first theory; for the second theory the Court's "obvious alternative explanation" (former monopolists sitting tight) is the Court's own inference, quoted as `held`, and has no fact-line home. misfit Text is capped at 60000 chars: the majority opinion and its footnotes are complete, but Justice Stevens's dissent (which reads the same allegations as sufficient) is truncated early in its Part II. v1 has `scope dissent`, but no dissent block was added (no new quote lines in this migration, and the dissent's conclusion lies beyond the cap). misfit The Court's evidentiary ladder (directed verdict / summary judgment / pleading each require something excluding independent action — Theatre Enterprises, Monsanto, Matsushita) is a stage-dependent proof rule for one element; no place to attach per-stage standards to an element. misfit The opinion relies on judicially noticed parts of articles cited in the complaint (Notebaert's fuller statement, footnote) to undercut an allegation. Polarity is relative to the element, so the Notebaert allegation is [supports]; that another passage is counter-evidence to THAT fact (fact-to-fact rebuttal) cannot be marked. misfit Result: judgment "reversed and remanded" but the effect is dismissal of the § 1 claim; recorded as claimant-lost rather than remanded.