‘Highly Unusual’ Rehearing of Louisiana Case Raises Judicial Independence Concerns
Louisiana Supreme Court Waffles Under Political Pressure, ATRA Brief Urges Court to Stand Strong
(3rd Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that antitrust cases require pleadings to include sufficient facts to establish a plausible foundation for the allegations. Requiring the complaint include sufficient plausible facts will help avoid highly speculative antitrust lawsuits and unnecessary litigation costs.
On August, 21, 2017, the Third Circuit found that the district court had adopted a heightened pleading standard that exceeded Iqbal/Twombly. “Twombly and Iqbal require only plausibility, a standard not akin to a probability requirement. While Twombly and Iqbal require that factual allegations be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, those cases make it clear that a claimant does not have to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim.” (internal citations, alterations, and quotations omitted) “The alleged reverse payment here was ‘large’ enough to permit a plausible inference that Pfizer possessed the power to bring about an unjustified anticompetitive harm through its patents and had serious doubts about the ability of those patents to lawfully prevent competition.”
Louisiana Supreme Court Waffles Under Political Pressure, ATRA Brief Urges Court to Stand Strong
Left unchecked, these jurisdictions will continue dragging down economic growth and undermining justice through rampant lawsuit abuse.
Claimants Given Opportunity to Vote on Plan; Judge to Reconsider Scientific Validity of Plaintiffs’ Experts
Legitimate consumer protection demands sound science and impartial analysis — not distorted data designed to manufacture lawsuits.
Law Firms Spent $168M+ on 2.2M Ads in Georgia
ATRA’s Latest Studies Reveal Financial Influence and Lack of Transparency in Pennsylvania’s Campaign Finance Systems