42 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,716 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (2007) Cited 64,333 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"
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.
504 U.S. 451 (1992) Cited 2,321 times 17 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
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc.
637 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2011) Cited 2,746 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that exclusive dealing agreements are unlawful where they "severely limit ... competition for the most important customers in categories needed to gain a foothold for effective competition"
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
539 U.S. 23 (2003) Cited 755 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal trademark law helps assure the mark holder that it "will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable product" rather than an imitator (quoting Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co. , 514 U.S. 159, 163–164, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995) )
United States v. Grinnell Corp.
384 U.S. 563 (1966) Cited 2,681 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) Cited 1,692 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.
472 U.S. 585 (1985) Cited 614 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that predatory conduct to attain or preserve a monopoly is a prerequisite to a finding of monopolization or attempted monopolization
Newcal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution
513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 886 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff who had already filed a fraud suit under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, and RICO had standing to seek a declaration that the defendant's fraudulently procured contracts were invalid
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose
893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1990) Cited 1,280 times
Holding that whether a tribe had the authority to enforce a tribal ordinance against a non-Native was a federal question
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 357,835 times 950 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,084 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
15 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 4,455 times 31 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.
Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
15 U.S.C. § 1 Cited 3,210 times 74 Legal Analyses
Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"

Pro Search Plus LLC v. VFM Leonardo Inc

42 Cited authorities

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

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

Holding that exclusive dealing agreements are unlawful where they "severely limit ... competition for the most important customers in categories needed to gain a foothold for effective competition"

Holding that federal trademark law helps assure the mark holder that it "will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable product" rather than an imitator (quoting Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co. , 514 U.S. 159, 163–164, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995) )

Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."

Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

Holding that predatory conduct to attain or preserve a monopoly is a prerequisite to a finding of monopolization or attempted monopolization

Holding that plaintiff who had already filed a fraud suit under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, and RICO had standing to seek a declaration that the defendant's fraudulently procured contracts were invalid

Holding that whether a tribe had the authority to enforce a tribal ordinance against a non-Native was a federal question

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

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.

Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"