BRFHH Shreveport LLC, dba University Health Shreveport v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, dba Willis-Knighton Health System

First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits any contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade. This Court has held that to make out a Section 1 claim and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead “only enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 556, 570 (2007). The First Question Presented, upon which the circuits are divided, is: May a Section 1 claim be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), consistent with Twombly, based on evidence suggesting an alternative, non-conspiratorial reason for the challenged conduct, where the complaint also contains substantial factual allegations disputing that alternative inference? Second, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits the monopolization (or attempted monopolization) of any trade or commerce through anticompetitive conduct. Such anticompetitive conduct is “conduct which unnecessarily excludes or handicaps competitors,” thereby “impairing competition.” Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 597 (1985). The Second Question Presented is: To adequately allege anticompetitive conduct for purposes of a Section 2 claim involving a threatened refusal to deal, must plaintiffs allege a “substantial foreclosure” of competition?