Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly

Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly - Bell Atlantic...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) Fact: Operative Facts: AT&T held a monopoly of the phone services. The 1996 Act permitted ILEC, which are regional monopoly’s to offer long distance, as long as they allow competition in their regional area. A group believed ILEC was violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, by agreeing with other telephone and internet companies, that they would monopolize their specific areas, and not “invade” each other. However this is hard to prove without the discovery phase of the litigation. They have to prove that the companies show conscious parallelism. They could not withstand the motion to dismiss, and was dismiss by the trial court. Issue: Whether there was a way for Bell Atlantic Corp. to survive a motion to dismiss Rule: To survive a motion to dismiss, they much have factual allegations enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Something more than series of facts that creates a suspicion. Rational:
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CIV PRO 141 taught by Professor Daucher during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online