[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;) |
Date: |
Wed, 17 May 2006 19:38:06 +0200 |
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); United States v. Clark County, Ind., 113
> > F.Supp.2d 1286, 1290 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The court will dismiss a
> > complaint for failure to state a claim only if it ââappears beyond
> > doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
> > claim which would entitle him to relief.ââ
>
> So what did you not understand in that?
I understand it fully, I believe. Why did you snip out the part on
determination?
"In making its determination, the court accepts the allegations
in the complaint as true, and it draws all reasonable inferences
in favor of the plaintiff."
Wallace alleged predatory pricing.
>
> >> For example, I can allege a person to be a rapist, but if there is
> >> no purported victim, I can't make a case from that.
> >
> > Alleged victim is Wallace.
>
> I did not state that the absence of an alleged victim was the
> deficiency in Wallace's claim. This was just a general example for an
> unsupportable claim.
>
> > So there's injury and it flows from the alleged predatory pricing
> > (the allegation which Judge Tinder simply ignores in his analysis).
>
> But there is no "predatory pricing" since ...
Whatever. But under 12(b)(6) standard, "the court accepts the
allegations in the complaint as true, and it draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff."
Why are you trying to disprove Wallace's allegations when I'm
talking about dismissal "based on failure to allege an
anticompetitive effect".
Wallace alleged predatory pricing and "predatory pricing has the
requisite anticompetitive effect" (ARCO).
Do you follow me, dak?
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), (continued)
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Miles Bader, 2006/05/16
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;),
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/18