http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1079 News and commentary about antitrust, economics, technology, policy Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:26:52 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1079/comment-page-1#comment-9082 David Fischer Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:20:59 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1079#comment-9082 <p>I have now posted about a motion to dismiss decision applying Twombly. http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1097</p> I have now posted about a motion to dismiss decision applying Twombly. http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1097

]]> http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1079/comment-page-1#comment-9069 Harry Gerla Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:18:30 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1079#comment-9069 <p>The case isn't really an example of Twombley in action. What made Twombley so significant is that it involved a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. Cosmetic Gallery involved a motion for summary judgment. As such, it is a routine "is there enough evidence conscious parallelism and plus factors" or "direct evidence of concerted action" case. Minus the cites to Twombley it could have been decided and written the same way even if Twombley had never been decided, or decided on the basis of Stevens' dissent!</p> The case isn’t really an example of Twombley in action. What made Twombley so significant is that it involved a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. Cosmetic Gallery involved a motion for summary judgment. As such, it is a routine “is there enough evidence conscious parallelism and plus factors” or “direct evidence of concerted action” case. Minus the cites to Twombley it could have been decided and written the same way even if Twombley had never been decided, or decided on the basis of Stevens’ dissent!

]]>