§Why CasetextPricing

F. RUGGIERO & SONS, INC. et al v. NYK LINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC. et al

RESPONSE in Opposition

32 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,784 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,697 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' "

  3. 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

  4. Dickson v. Microsoft Corp.

    309 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,177 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "to state a viable § 1 claim, [the plaintiff] was required to allege facts which, if proven true, would demonstrate that [the defendants' agreements] were likely to result in an anticompetitive effect"

  5. Elevator Antitrust v. United Tech

    502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 805 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conspiratorial activity “in entirely general terms without any specification of any particular activities by any particular defendant ... was nothing more than a list of theoretical possibilities, which one could postulate without knowing any facts whatever”

  6. Continental Co. v. Union Carbide

    370 U.S. 690 (1962)   Cited 805 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Court of Appeals erred by addressing plaintiff's allegations as separate claims, because in an antitrust case "plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after scrutiny of each."

  7. Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm't

    592 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 560 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff need only "alleged specific facts sufficient to plausibly suggest that the parallel conduct alleged was the result of an agreement among the defendants"

  8. Craftmatic Securities Litigation v. Kraftsow

    890 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 537 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "claims essentially grounded on corporate mismanagement are not cognizable under federal law"

  9. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig.

    685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 490 times
    Holding that the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its discretion

  10. State of N.Y. v. Hendrickson Bros., Inc.

    840 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 360 times
    Holding that, in cases of fraudulent concealment, "the plaintiff may prove the concealment element by showing either that the defendant took affirmative steps to prevent the plaintiff's discovery of his claim or injury or that the wrong itself was of such a nature as to be self-concealing."

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,931 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,907 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"