Monday, May 21, 2007
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
The Supreme Court decision in Twombly just came out. I cannot say that I am surprised by the decision nor do I disagree with it. We don't want to allow for unnecessary fishing expeditions in our court system. If there is a good case, there should be evidence to support it.
The important quote is the following:
In applying these general standards to a §1 claim, we hold that stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made. Asking for plausible grounds to infer an agreement does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement... It makes sense to say, therefore, that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice. Without more, parallel conduct does not suggest conspiracy, and a conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to show illegality. Hence, when allegations of parallel conduct are set out in order to make a §1 claim, they must be placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action.
You can download the decision below.