§Why CasetextPricing

Corr Wireless Communications, L.L.C. et al v. AT&T, Inc. et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend

11 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,336 times   364 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' "

  2. Allied Tube Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.

    486 U.S. 492 (1988)   Cited 299 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[c]oncerted efforts to restrain or monopolize trade by petitioning government officials," including "a form of indirect petitioning," are "protected from antitrust liability under the doctrine established by Noerr"

  3. U.S. ex Rel. Adrian v. Regents of U. of Calif

    363 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 295 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a third amended complaint where the plaintiff had already been given opportunities to amend and did not indicate what additional facts he could plead to correct the deficiencies in his complaint

  4. Matter of Southmark Corp.

    88 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 348 times
    Holding a court, when determining whether to grant leave to amend, may consider the failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed and futility of the proposed amendment

  5. In re Enron Corp. Securities

    535 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that plan confirmation does not divest a district court of bankruptcy jurisdiction over pre-confirmation claims based on pre-confirmation activities that properly had been removed pursuant to "related to" jurisdiction.

  6. Golden Bridge v. Motorola

    547 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing the same rule statement and elaborating

  7. Clamp-All Corp. v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe

    851 F.2d 478 (1st Cir. 1988)   Cited 59 times
    Finding that where plaintiff alleged no improper practices or procedures in standard-setting process, evidence was insufficient to go to the jury

  8. TruePosition, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Tel. Co.

    CIVIL ACTION No. 11-4574 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2012)   Cited 4 times

    CIVIL ACTION No. 11-4574 08-21-2012 TRUEPOSITION, INC., Plaintiff, v. LM ERICSSON TELEPHONE COMPANY (TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON), QUALCOMM, INC., ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS INSTITUTE, and THIRD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT a/k/a 3GPP, Defendants. ROBERT F. KELLY MEMORANDUM ROBERT F. KELLY , Sr. J. Presently before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint of TruePosition, Inc. Filed By Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. ("ALU"), LM Ericsson Telephone

  9. Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 4,379 times   30 Legal Analyses
    In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

  10. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,892 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"

  11. Section 151 - Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created

    47 U.S.C. § 151   Cited 1,486 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Creating the FCC in 1934 "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."