Lee et al v. Learfield Communications, LLC et al
ORDER AND REASONS: pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fobb and Collection's 45 motion to dismiss is GRANTED and that the claims against Fobb and Collection are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/17/2020. (blg)
Case 2:20-cv-00839-LMA-KWR Document 48 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PAIGE LEE, ET AL.
LLC, ET AL.
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion1 filed by defendants Defron Fobb (“Fobb”) and
Anthony Lawrence Collection, LLC (“Collection”) (collectively, “defendants”) for
dismissal of the claims filed by plaintiffs Paige Lee, Business Moves Consulting, Inc.
(“Business Moves”), Brandmixer, Inc. (“Brandmixer”), and Curtis Bordenave
(“Bordenave” and collectively, “plaintiffs”), pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs oppose2 the motion. For the following
reasons, the motion is granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil
The Court is familiar with the facts of the case, 3 which center on plaintiffs’
allegations that defendants are infringing on plaintiffs’ rights to the name and
registered trademark, “THEEILOVE[.]”4 Previously, the Court granted two motions
R. Doc. No. 45.
R. Doc. No. 47.
3 See R. Doc. No. 44, at 1–6 (Order and Reasons describing the facts of the case).
4 See R. Doc. No. 1.
Case 2:20-cv-00839-LMA-KWR Document 48 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 3
to dismiss, finding that “after reviewing each of the Rule 19(b) factors, in ‘equity and
good conscience,’ the case cannot proceed absent [Jackson State University (“JSU”)].
Therefore, the Court finds JSU to be a required party to this lawsuit. Because JSU[‘s]
joinder would divest this Court of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs’ claims
against defendants must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7).”5
In the instant motion to dismiss, defendants reference the Court’s reasoning
in that previous Order and incorporate the arguments advanced by the defendants
who filed the previously successful motions to dismiss. 6 In opposition to the instant
motion to dismiss, defendants similarly reference the prior motion practice, and they
“incorporate by reference” their previously unsuccessful filings.7
Having already considered the substance of the motions that have been
incorporated by the parties, for the same reasons stated in the previous Order, the
Court finds the instant motion to dismiss must also be granted.
R. Doc. No. 44, at 18.
R. Doc. No. 45-1, at 1 (stating that “Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims
for the same reasons stated by the Court in its order dated September 25, 2020 (Rec.
Doc. 44) and asserted in the motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 14) filed by Defendant,
Collegiate Licensing Company, L.L.C. (“CLC”) (incorrectly identified in the
Complaint (Rec. Doc. 1) as Learfield Communications, LLC), pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(1) and 12(b)(7).”); id. at 2 (“Defron Fobb and Anthony
Lawrence Collection, LLC adopt the memorandum and supporting documents that
CLC filed in support of its Motion to Dismiss, as if copied herein in extenso.”).
7 R. Doc. No. 47 (stating, in full: “To oppose Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [R. Doc.
45] and all associated filings, all plaintiffs incorporate by reference Plaintiffs’
Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to Mo-tion(s) [sic] to Dismiss and all associated
filings [R. Doc. 31 - R. Doc. 31-4]”).
Case 2:20-cv-00839-LMA-KWR Document 48 Filed 11/17/20 Page 3 of 3
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Fobb and Collection’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and that the claims
against Fobb and Collection in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 17, 2020.
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?