Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

J & J Sports Productions, Inc v. Brewbakers, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 21, 2019

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC, Plaintiff,
v.
BREWBAKERS, INC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 29),
2. Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (Dkt. No. 30),
3. Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 31),

         all attached declarations and exhibits, and relevant portions of the record, rules as follows:

         IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, with leave to amend.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants have 14 days from the date of this order to file an amended answer and counterclaim.

         Background

         Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C § 553 (theft of a cable signal) and the tort of trespass of chattel against Defendants BrewBaker, Inc. (d/b/a BrewBakers Brewery) and Eleanor and Robert Brubaker. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Following the filing of an answer and counterclaim by Defendants (Dkt. No. 28; “Answer, ” “Counterclaim”), Plaintiff filed the instant motion to dismiss.

         The complaint alleges an unauthorized showing of a pay-per-view (“PPV”) boxing match at a commercial establishment owned and operated by the individual Defendants (“the Brubakers”). See Complaint at ¶¶ 26, 34, and 39. Defendants assert as affirmative defenses that they have no commercial establishment containing a television, have never shown a television event for profit at their brewery, and paid the appropriate viewing fees for a private residential screening of the boxing match. See Answer, Affirmative Defenses at ¶¶ 2-4.

         Defendants also bring counterclaims against Plaintiff for “trespass, intentional trespass, and intrusion, ” and for a violation of RCW 19.86.090, Washington's Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). Id., Counterclaim, ¶¶ 10, 13-18. It is these counterclaims which are the subject of Plaintiff's motion to dismiss.

         Discussion

         Standard of review

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court must accept all well-pleaded allegations of material fact as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998).

         Dismissal is appropriate where a complaint fails to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). As a result, a complaint must contain "more than labels and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.