Pargas-Gonzales v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an acceleration clause is not subject to antitrust scrutiny where Plaintiffs conceded that they could be procompetitive in some circumstances, but noting that no-AG clauses are subject to antitrust scrutiny
• noting that “a presumption of causation” may apply where conduct is unlawful because of its tendency to cause a certain injury, but only if “that injury occurred”
• at motion to dismiss stage, “[p]laintiffs are due all reasonable inferences, but they must allege some factual basis from which to make those inferences”
• on a 12(b)(6) motion, “[p]laintiffs are due all reasonable inferences, but they must allege some factual basis from which to make those inferences”
• “An antitrust plaintiff must show that a defendant’s anticompetitive act was a ‘material’ and ‘but-for’ cause of plaintiff's injury, although not necessarily the sole cause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).