In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

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).