M.D. Pennsylvania· 3/4/2009

In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

Citations

602 F. Supp. 2d 538
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20975
2009 WL 560601

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that the court must accept plaintiffs' factual allegations as true at Rule 12 stage
dismissing, with opportunity to amend, plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims which did not identify the states under whose laws they brought their claims
alleging a nationwide price fixing scheme that resulted in price increases in Nevada and elsewhere sufficiently alleged intrastate effects
explaining “case law suggesting that plaintiff may not rely on the pleadings alone . . . misstates plaintiff’s burden”
finding the plaintiffs had sufficiently pled a claim under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act where they alleged that a \plaintiff had paid approximately 30% more for a product as a result of price fixing\
permitting “[a] period of discovery [to] enable plaintiffs to develop the lineaments of [defendants’] relationships with the U.S. market” after plaintiffs had “adduced sufficient evidence to warrant jurisdictional discovery against the Rule 12(b)(2) defendants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Christopher C. Conner

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

44 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

118 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

9 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.