In this putative class action, plaintiff alleged that defendants conspired in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act to fix prices for helicopter services for oil and gas workers travelling to and from drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Visiting Judge Davis granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court found that plaintiff’s allegations of collusion among defendants rested only upon claims of parallel business conduct in raising prices. Such allegations are insufficient to prove an illegal conspiracy among market participants, where, as here, the plaintiff has failed to plead any of the “plus factors” that would allow the court to distinguish between an actual agreement among competitors and mere parallel conduct. A “statement reportedly made by an unidentified ‘operator’ that ‘everyone more or less agreed to the necessity of a more or less equal rate hike for everyone,’” did not provide an adequate basis to infer an agreement among defendants. 738 F.Supp. 2d at 512. The alleged statement could have relevance only based upon unsupported, speculative inferences that the unidentified speaker was employed by one of the defendants, that he participated in pricing decisions, and that the statement was accurately reported. Concluding that “[p]laintiff's claim of conspiracy stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief,” id. at 517, the court dismissed the complaint.