Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

550 U.S. 544 (2007) Supreme Court of the United States 2007-05-21

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)

Facts

  1. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    Plaintiffs say, first, that the ILECs “engaged in parallel conduct” in their respective service areas to inhibit the growth of upstart CLECs.
  2. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    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.
  3. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    Second, the complaint charges agreements by the ILECs to refrain from competing against one another.
  4. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    we hold that stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made.
  5. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    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.
  6. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    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.
  7. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    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.
  8. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    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.
  9. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    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.
  10. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.
  11. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers not pleaded
    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.’”