Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
Issues
Is a complaint alleging that defendants engaged in parallel conduct and that they participated in a "conspiracy" sufficient to state a claim under section 1 of the Sherman act, 15 U.S.C . § 1, even if the complaint does not assert any factual allegations that, if proven true, would necessarily establish the existence of a conspiracy?
Plaintiff, Twombly, brought a class action antitrust suit against local telephone and internet providers (Bell Atlantic) alleging the defendants had agreed not to compete with each other and conspired to prevent the entry of competitors within their respective territories. The District Court granted Bell Atlantic’s 12(b)6 motion to dismiss on the grounds that Twombly’s complaint failed to include a factual allegation that would “tend to exclude” independent self-interest as an explanation for defendants’ parallel conduct. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded on the grounds that a heightened pleading standard does not apply in the context of antitrust litigation. Bell Atlantic argues that application of the “tend to exclude” standard is necessary to filter frivolous lawsuits. Twombly responds that the “tend to exclude” standard is contrary to the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and would unfairly block meritorious antitrust suits.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a complaint states a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, if it alleges that the defendants engaged in parallel conduct and adds a bald assertion that the defendants were participants in a "conspiracy," without any allegations that, if later proved true, would establish the existence of a conspiracy under the applicable legal standard.
Plaintiff, William Twombly, brought a class action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of all individuals who purchased local telephone and internet service in the continental United States between February 8, 1996, and the present. Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 313 F.Supp.2d 174, 176 (S.D.N.Y.
The authors would like to thank Professor Kevin Clermont for his insights into this case.
Additional Resources
- Charles Lane, Justices To Rule on Punitive Damages, Wash. Post, May. 31, 2006, at D01
- Law about... Antitrust, Civil Procedure