In Re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, 630 F.3d 622

Consolidated class action alleging price fixing in text messaging markets under the Sherman Act.
District court allowed a second amended complaint despiteTwombly objections, denying dismissal and permitting discovery.
Defendants sought interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b); district court granted certification.
Seventh Circuit granted interlocutory review, holding Twombly pleading plausibility is a controlling question of law.
Second amended complaint alleges 90% market share, trade association conduct, leadership council, pricing structure changes, and uniform price increases.
Plaintiffs have not conducted discovery; the ruling allows discovery to assess plausibility of conspiracy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second amended complaint plausibly states a price-fixing claim under Twombly	Twombly plausibility satisfied by parallel plus allegations	Allegations insufficient to show conspiracy	Yes; complaint plausibly alleges price fixing
Whether Twombly pleading standard is a controlling question of law for §1292(b)	Pleading standard interpretation is controlling	Not a pure question of law; factual review needed	Yes; it's a controlling question of law for appeal
Whether the district court correctly allowed an interlocutory appeal	Immediate review may prevent protracted litigation	Appeal premature if not controlling	Yes; interlocutory appeal granted

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading plausibility standard; anti-trust context)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; standard for pleading)
Portis v. City of Chicago, 613 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes §1292(b) controlling-question-of-law framework)
Armstrong v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 552 F.3d 613 (7th Cir.2009) (application of Twombly to pleading standards)
Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) (nonrecord-based review; relevance to interlocutory appeals)