14 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,625 times 365 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,300 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
465 U.S. 770 (1984) Cited 3,027 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity
In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 1,461 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that per se "hub and spoke" theory was not properly pled when complaint detailed specific agreements between multiple insurers and a single broker, but did not allege facts such that the court could infer that the insurers had agreed horizontally to enter into their respective agreements with the broker
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
438 U.S. 422 (1978) Cited 971 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[t]he exchange of price data and other information among competitors does not invariably have anticompetitive effect ... we have held that such exchanges of information do not constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act”
Major League Baseball v. Salvino
542 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 915 times
Holding adequate foundation for business records exception laid in similar affidavit
Todd v. Exxon Corp.
275 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 550 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding employees’ allegations of information exchanges and oligopsonistic market sufficient to state claim of wage suppression conspiracy
Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. Citigroup, Inc.
709 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 287 times
Holding plaintiffs failed to allege a conspiracy because "en masse flight from a collapsing market in which [defendants] had significant downside exposure—made perfect business sense"
Ross v. Am. Express Co.
35 F. Supp. 3d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) Cited 24 times
Finding redressability requirement met where the plaintiffs sought injunction invalidating American Express arbitration clauses that barred class actions even where plaintiffs were not holders of American Express cards, because the harms were "present market effects" and "the elimination of Amex's clause would redress the identified injuries to the market even if it did not directly affect any individual cardholder"
In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.
152 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Ohio 2015) Cited 11 times
Finding certain exchanges that occurred in the context of a vendor-customer relationship did not support an inference of conspiracy
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 68,973 times 122 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litigation

14 Cited authorities

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”

Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity

Holding that “[t]he exchange of price data and other information among competitors does not invariably have anticompetitive effect ... we have held that such exchanges of information do not constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act”

Holding adequate foundation for business records exception laid in similar affidavit

Holding employees’ allegations of information exchanges and oligopsonistic market sufficient to state claim of wage suppression conspiracy

Holding plaintiffs failed to allege a conspiracy because "en masse flight from a collapsing market in which [defendants] had significant downside exposure—made perfect business sense"

Finding certain exchanges that occurred in the context of a vendor-customer relationship did not support an inference of conspiracy

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time