J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ayala et al
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: DENYING dft Cesar Perez Rodriguez's 49 MOTION to Dismiss, which has been construed as a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 4/17/15.(KJR)cc: COR, Rodriguez (US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Lexington)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS,
Plaintiff,
V.
CESAR PEREZ RODRIGUEZ,
individually and d/b/a EL CANCUN,
Defendants.
***
***
Civil Action No. 5: 13-298-DCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
***
***
Proceeding without counsel, Defendant Cesar Perez Rodriguez, individually and d/b/a
El Cancun, has filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims that Perez violated federal and
state law by allegedly broadcasting a live program in a commercial establishment without
obtaining the requisite licensing rights. [Record No. 49] Having reviewed the motion, the
Court finds that a response is not necessary. Construing the motion as either a motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or, because discovery has concluded, a motion for summary
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the motion will be denied.
First, the defendant’s motion is untimely. The Scheduling Order required the parties
to file dispositive motions on or before March 6, 2015. [Record No. 30, ¶ 8] However, the
defendnat’s motion was not filed until April 16, 2015. The Court denied an earlier joint
motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline. [Record No. 45]
-1-
Second, the defendant’s motion fails to address any of the material allegations
relevant to the plaintiff’s claims. Perez does not rely on any legal authority or point to any
evidence in his motion. Instead, he summarily states that he has “provided enough evidence”
against the plaintiff’s allegations. Such allegations are woefully inadequate. The defendant
has failed to show that the Complaint does not allege “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, 555 (2007)).
Likewise, to prevail on a summary judgment motion, “a party asserting that a fact
cannot be . . . genuinely disputed must support the proposition by: (A) citing to particular
parts of the materials in the record, including depositions, documents . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(1). Summary judgment is only proper where there are no genuine disputes of any
material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). All facts and inferences
must be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
In summary, Perez’s motion is untimely and fails to show that the Complaint fails to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, or that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
the plaintiff’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Cesar Perez Rodriguez’s motion [Record No. 49] to
dismiss, which has been construed as a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary
judgment, is DENIED.
-2-
This 17th day of April, 2015.
-3-
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.
Why Is My Information Online?