§Why CasetextPricing

Textpower, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership et al

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:

10 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson News, L. L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc.

    680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 592 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants' “varied” actions during the initial stages of the alleged conspiracy did not render the existence of a conspiracy implausible

  2. Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm't

    592 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 559 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"

  3. Port Dock v. Oldcastle

    507 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 534 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a manufacturer's breach of a distributorship agreement was not anticompetitive because the manufacturer "expected to perform the second level service more efficiently than the old trading partners"

  4. Harris v. New York State Department of Health

    202 F. Supp. 2d 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that New York did not waive sovereign immunity from suit under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when it accepted funds through 2000, more than one year before Garcia was decided

  5. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

    748 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Vt. 2010)   Cited 41 times
    Stating that dismissals are "generally limited to instances in which the complaint either: fails to allege a geographic market or the boundaries of a relevant geographic market; defines a geographic market in an unreasonably and implausibly narrow manner; or alleges a contradictory and vague delineation of the relevant geographic market. Here, none of those glaring deficiencies are present in the Amended Complaint. As a result, the proper market definition in this case can be determined only after a factual inquiry into the commercial realities faced by consumers."

  6. Michelman v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corp.

    534 F.2d 1036 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that “[g]iven the legitimate function of [the creditworthiness of customers], it is not a violation of § 1 to exchange such information, provided that any action taken in reliance upon it is the result of each firm's independent judgment, and not of agreement”

  7. Wellnx Life Sciences v. Iovate Health Sciences

    516 F. Supp. 2d 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting the unavailability of a viable action under § 43 of the Lanham Act for not disclosing facts

  8. Rite Aid Corp. v. Amer. Exp. Travel Related Serv. Co.

    708 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 23 times
    Denying Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the MP Actions

  9. In re Fasteners Antitrust Litigation

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-md-1912 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2011)   Cited 7 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-md-1912. August 12, 2011 MEMORANDUM R. BARCLAY SURRICK, District Judge Presently before the Court are Coats plc's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 69), Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 70), Defendant YKK Corporation's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 71), and Coats plc's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 73). For the following reasons, Defendants'

  10. In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation

    06-MD-1775, ALL CASES (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2008)   Cited 6 times
    In Air Cargo, the court provided an extensive and persuasive analysis of this issue in concluding that "the adjudication of European Union antitrust claims would undermine the principles of international comity, as well as show a lack of respect for Europe's sovereign interest in maintaining its antitrust enforcement framework."