12 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 265,756 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' "
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,014 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 112,965 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.
465 U.S. 752 (1984) Cited 1,183 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff in a vertical price-fixing case must produce evidence which "tends to exclude the possibility of independent action"
In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 1,457 times 3 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
Howard Hess Dental v. Dentsply Intern
602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 797 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was inadequate for the complaint to state in "a conclusory manner" that "Defendants, each with all of the others, have entered into two interrelated conspiracies" and that "every Dealer knew that every other Dealer agreed, or would agree, to th[e] same [allegedly unlawful] plan"
AD/SAT, DIV. OF SKYLIGHT v. ASSOCIATED PRESS
181 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 185 times
Holding that “a district court's decision whether to permit oral argument rests within its discretion”
In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
856 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 86 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that “Plaintiffs have adequately pled antitrust injury” because they “have asserted that their salary and mobility were suppressed by Defendants' agreements not to cold call, and that the alleged agreements were entered into to suppress competition for skilled labor”
Wilcox v. First Interstate Bk. of Oregon, N.A.
815 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 121 times
Holding that the process by which the defendant banks set their prime rates based on the prime rates of other major banks did not violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
White v. R.M. Packer Co.
635 F.3d 571 (1st Cir. 2011) Cited 34 times 1 Legal Analyses
Summarizing Interstate Circuit
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,220 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

12 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 a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

Holding that a plaintiff in a vertical price-fixing case must produce evidence which "tends to exclude the possibility of independent action"

Holding that it was inadequate for the complaint to state in "a conclusory manner" that "Defendants, each with all of the others, have entered into two interrelated conspiracies" and that "every Dealer knew that every other Dealer agreed, or would agree, to th[e] same [allegedly unlawful] plan"

Holding that “a district court's decision whether to permit oral argument rests within its discretion”

Holding that “Plaintiffs have adequately pled antitrust injury” because they “have asserted that their salary and mobility were suppressed by Defendants' agreements not to cold call, and that the alleged agreements were entered into to suppress competition for skilled labor”

Holding that the process by which the defendant banks set their prime rates based on the prime rates of other major banks did not violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Summarizing Interstate Circuit

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit