Whether a plaintiff must allege evidence of 'plus factors' in addition to parallel anticompetitive conduct to plead an antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, declares illegal “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations[.]” In Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), this Court addressed the application of the Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standard to antitrust conspiracy claims under Section 1, reinterpreting that standard to require that a plaintiff plead sufficient “factual matter” to provide “plausible grounds to infer an agreement”. Id., at 556. Twombly made clear that, in the absence of direct evidence of an agreement, it was no longer sufficient to rely solely on parallel anticompetitive conduct by the alleged conspirators at the pleading stage. But courts of appeals have differed as to the kind and degree of additional evidence which must be alleged to plead plausible grounds for a conspiracy under Section 1. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a plaintiff must allege evidence of “plus factors” in addition to parallel anticompetitive conduct in order to plead an antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 2. Whether allegations of circumstantial evidence falling short of dispositive “plus factors” may be sufficient to plead an antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.