Paramount Media Group, Inc. v. Village of Bellwood et al

Filing 45

ORDER ; Defendant Image Media Advertising, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 21 is denied. Defendant Village of Bellwood's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 24 is also d enied. The stay on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 29 is lifted. Defendants' responses are due on or before November 1, 2013. Discovery shall move apace. Signed by the Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr on 10/16/2013. Mailed notice(ea, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
PARAMOI.INT MEDIA GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil ActionNo. 13 CY 3994
Hon. Charles R. Norgle

VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD, et a1.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Defendant Image Media Advertising, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Rule
12(bX6) [21] is denied. Defendant Village of Bellwood's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s
Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(bX6) [2a] is also denied. The stay on Plaintiff s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [29] is lifted. Defendants' responses are due on or before November 1,
2013. Plaintiff s reply is due on or before November 8,2013. Discovery shall move apace.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Paramount Media Group, Inc. ("Plaintiff') sues Defendants Village of Bellwood
(the "Village") and Image Media Advertising, Inc. ("Image Media") (collectively, "Defendants,,)
for alleged violations of the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. $$ l-2, and seeks a declaratory judgment that the Village exceeded its authority to
authorize the execution of an agreement between the Village and Image Media, which provides
Image Media with the opportunity to construct a billboard advertising sign on Village property.
Before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint pursuant to pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the fotlowing reasons, the motions are denied.
A motion under Rule l2(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint under the plausibility
standard," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007), not the merits of the suit,
Gibson v. City of Chi. , 910 F .2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). In deciding a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts in Plaintiff s Complaint,
and draws all reasonable inferences in its favor. Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture. LLC, 714
F.3d 50 1 , 504 (7th Ctu. 2013) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff s Complaint provides Defendants with fair notice of the claims and the
grounds for relief. The Court declines Defendants' invitation to determine the merits of the case
at this stage in the proceedings. "A complaint that invokes a recognized legal theory (as this one
does) and contains plausible allegations on the material issues (as this one does) cannot be
dismissed under Rule 12." Richards v. Mitcheff, 696F.3d635, 638 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007)). Accordingly, Defendants' motions are denied.

Finally, the stay on Plaintiffls motion for a preliminary injunction is lifted. Defendants'
for a preliminary injunction are due on or before November I,2013.
Plaintiff s reply is due on or before November 8, 2013. Discovery shall move apace.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
responses to the motion

CHARLES RONALD N
United States District Co

DATE: October 16,2013