In Re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• denying motion to dismiss where market concentration allegations accompanied by allegations concerning an ongoing agreement to exchange price information for the purpose of stabilizing or increasing prices
• rejecting argument plaintiffs must allege each defendant’s specific role in an antitrust conspiracy
• dismissing an unjust enrichment claim because “until Plaintiffs indicate which States’ laws support their claim, the Court cannot assess whether the claim has been adequately [pled]”
• dismissing 5 an unjust enrichment claim because “until plaintiffs indicate which [s]tates’ laws support their 6 claim, the Court cannot assess whether the claim has been adequately [pled]”
• “The Court agrees that the existence of the investigation [regarding SRAM] does not support Plaintiffs' antitrust conspiracy claims”
• allegations regarding internal emails that discussed competitor’s pricing were germane in terms of meeting the Twombly standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).