Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Alexander Terekhov]

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 “‘appears beyond
> > doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
> > claim which would entitle him to relief.’”
> 
> 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.