§Why CasetextPricing

In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - MDL 1869

Memorandum in opposition to re Joint MOTION to Dismiss DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTFFS' CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT

59 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,629 times   366 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. Erickson v. Pardus

    551 U.S. 89 (2007)   Cited 62,210 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

  3. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 58,634 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

  4. Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital

    425 U.S. 738 (1976)   Cited 6,294 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a conspiracy against a North Carolina hospital had "a substantial effect on interstate commerce," and hence was covered by the Sherman Act, because it could, inter alia, reduce the hospital's purchases of out-of-state medicines and supplies

  5. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.

    504 U.S. 451 (1992)   Cited 2,297 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product

  6. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting

    368 U.S. 464 (1962)   Cited 2,861 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding agent potentially liable where he knew of the "obvious purpose and necessary effect" to eliminate independent stations and "had a personal stake in the outcome"

  7. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

    468 U.S. 85 (1984)   Cited 666 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NCAA restrictions on televising college football games are subject to Rule of Reason analysis for the “critical” reason that “horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all”

  8. National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. U.S.

    435 U.S. 679 (1978)   Cited 743 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding agreement among engineers to refuse to discuss prices with potential customers until after the initial selection of an engineer was per se illegal

  9. Elevator Antitrust v. United Tech

    502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 806 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”

  10. Continental Co. v. Union Carbide

    370 U.S. 690 (1962)   Cited 808 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."

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 157,408 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,927 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"

  13. Section 10709 - Contracts

    49 U.S.C. § 10709   Cited 122 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that contracts between rail carriers and shippers, which are not subject to rate requirements of the ICCTA, must be enforced in state or federal court

  14. Section 10704 - Authority and criteria: rates, classifications, rules, and practices prescribed by Board

    49 U.S.C. § 10704   Cited 88 times
    Requiring the Board to issue a decision within 90 days of the close of the record

  15. Section 10708 - Rail cost adjustment factor

    49 U.S.C. § 10708   Cited 35 times
    Establishing procedures for investigation and suspension