Perform Investment Limited v. Morgan et al
| Perform Investment Limited and Perform Investment Limited doing business as DAZN |
| 1920 Richmond Bar Inc., Mark Langton, Teresa Morgan and 1920 Richmond Bar Inc. doing business as Paddy's of Park Slope |
| 1:2019cv01845 |
| April 1, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| LaShann DeArcy Hall |
| Peggy Kuo |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
SCHEDULING ORDER: An Initial Conference will be held in this case on July 26, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. before Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge, in Courtroom 11C South of the United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. All counsel are required to attend. Counsel are directed to the annexed Initial Conference Order for instructions. At least five days before the Conference, the parties must file a completed copy of the Proposed Discovery Plan, a PDF version of which may be found at: https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/PK-discovplan.pdf. Any request for adjournment of this or any other conference must be made in writing on notice to opposing parties, and must disclose whether or not all parties consent. No request for adjournment will be considered unless made at least two (2) business days before the scheduled conference, except in the event of an emergency. Counsel with knowledge and authority must be present. Per diem counsel may not appear without prior permission of the Court. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo on 6/21/2019. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Discovery Plan) (Riquelme, Claudia)
|
| Filing 14 Teresa Morgan, et al ANSWER to #1 Complaint, submitted by All Defendants. (Stewart, Audra) |
| Filing 13 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Perform Investment Limited identifying Corporate Parent Perform Group Limited for Perform Investment Limited. (Lonstein, Julie) |
|
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendants' June 6, 2019 letter motion #12 for a pre-motion conference on their anticipated motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As an initial matter, Defendants have again failed to adhere to this Court's Individual Practices, which limit pre-motion letters to no more than three pages. Defendants' letter exceeds six pages. Although the Court would normally be inclined to order Defendants to again resubmit a letter conforming to its Individual Practices, such effort would be futile, given Defendants' fundamental misapplication of the legal rules applicable to their motion. To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the alleged facts allow the court to draw a "reasonable inference" of a defendants liability for the alleged misconduct. Id. While this standard requires more than a "sheer possibility" of a defendants liability, id., "[i]t is not the Courts function to weigh the evidence that might be presented at trial" on a motion to dismiss. Morris v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 37 F. Supp. 2d 556, 565 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). Instead, the Court must merely determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient, and, in doing so, it is well settled that the Court must accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true. Id. (citations omitted). Here, Defendants advance two meritless arguments for dismissal. The first is that the complaint fails to meet the notice-pleading requirement of Rule 8. Nonsense. The well-pleaded complaint gives Defendants fair notice of Plaintiff's claims and the grounds on which they rest. Defendants' second argument is that "there is no identifiable evidence" to substantiate Plaintiff's claims. Of course, a plaintiff is not required to adduce such evidence in its complaint. That is what discovery is for. Nonetheless, Defendants ask the Court to consider three exhibits that are neither referenced in the complaint nor apparently integral to it. As defense counsel should be well aware, a court may not consider materials outside the four corners of a complaint without converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Faulkner v. Beer, 463 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Defendants' motion #12 to dismiss the complaint, which the Court deems fully briefed, is DENIED. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 6/10/2019. (Valentin, Winnethka)
|
| Filing 12 Letter MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by 1920 Richmond Bar Inc., Mark Langton, Teresa Morgan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit) (Stewart, Audra) |
|
ORDER: Defendants' May 31, 2019 motion #11 to dismiss is TERMINATED as inadvertently filed. This Court's Individual Practices require moving parties to submit a pre-motion letter in advance of any motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Defendants shall file a pre-motion letter by June 7, 2019. Plaintiff shall file its response by June 14. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 6/4/2019. (Valentin, Winnethka)
|
| Filing 11 First MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by 1920 Richmond Bar Inc., Mark Langton, Teresa Morgan. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Motion, #2 Memorandum in Support, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit) (Stewart, Audra) |
| Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Perform Investment Limited. Teresa Morgan waiver sent on 4/4/2019, answer due 6/3/2019. (Lonstein, Julie) |
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Perform Investment Limited. Mark Langton waiver sent on 4/4/2019, answer due 6/3/2019. (Lonstein, Julie) |
| Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Perform Investment Limited. 1920 Richmond Bar Inc. waiver sent on 4/4/2019, answer due 6/3/2019. (Lonstein, Julie) |
| Filing 7 Notice of Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action or appeal Regarding a Copyright. (Attachments: #1 complaint) (Rocco, Christine) |
| Filing 6 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 5 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to 1920 Richmond Bar Inc., Mark Langton, Teresa Morgan. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Perform Investment Limited d/b/a Dazn re #1 Complaint, Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding Copyright (Lonstein, Julie) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Perform Investment Limited d/b/a Dazn (Lonstein, Julie) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against 1920 Richmond Bar Inc., Mark Langton, Teresa Morgan filing fee $ 400, receipt number ANYEDC-11337952 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -yes,, filed by Perform Investment Limited d/b/a Dazn. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplement Summons as to Defendant, Teresa Morgan, #3 Supplement Summons as to Defendant, Mark Langton, #4 Supplement Summons as to Defendant, 1920 Richmond Bar Inc.) (Lonstein, Julie) |
| Case assigned to Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall and Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
