Pizzarelli v. THE CADILLAC LOUNGE, L.C.C. et al

Filing 16

AMENDED ORDER re 10 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Nancy Shappy, Richard Shappy, 15 Order on Motion to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 2/12/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE CADILLAC LOUNGE, L.L.C.,
)
NANCY SHAPPY and RICHARD SHAPPY,
)
all d/b/a THE CADILLAC LOUNGE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
MARISA PIZZARELLI, on
behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,

C.A. No. 15-254 S

AMENDED ORDER
This is one of three cases brought by the same set of
Plaintiffs’ attorneys on behalf of exotic dancers at three
Rhode Island night clubs.

(See Levi, et al. v. Gulliver’s

Tavern, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 15-216 (“Levi”); Binienda v.
Atwells

Realty

Corp.,

(“Binienda”).)

The

allegations

causes

and

et

cases

al.,

involve

of

C.A.

No.

15-253

substantially

similar

action.

(Compare

Levi

Am.

Compl., ECF No. 13 in C.A. No. 15-216, with Binienda Am.
Compl.,

ECF

No.

10

in

C.A.

No.

15-253,

with

Pizzarelli

Compl., ECF No. 1 in C.A. No. 15-254.)
Before
Shappy’s

the

Court

(collectively,

(“Motion”).

is
the

Defendants
“Shappys”)

Richard
Motion

and
to

(ECF No. 10 in C.A. No. 15-254.)

Nancy
Dismiss
In the

Motion, the Shappys argue that Plaintiff Marisa Pizzarelli
(“Pizzarelli”)
them

failed

individual

allegations

to

liable

Pizzarelli

plead
for

facts

sufficient

Pizzarelli’s

specifically

to

hold

claims.

raises

The

against

the

Shappys are identical to those Plaintiffs raised against
the individual defendants in Levi: that the Shappys are
“the owners, operators, officers, and managing partners of
the [club].”

(Compare Levi Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8, ECF No. 13

in C.A. No. 15-216, with Pizzarelli Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No.
1 in C.A. No. 15-254.)

Further, the Shappys arguments in

support of their Motion are substantially similar to the
arguments
(Compare
Dismiss

made
Levi

4-6,

by
Mem.

ECF

the
in

No.

individual
Supp.

15-1

in

of

defendants

Defs.’

C.A.

No.

in

Partial

Levi.

Mot.

15-216

and

to

Levi

Defs.’ Reply 8-10, ECF No. 19 in C.A. No. 15-216, with
Pizzarelli Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismss, ECF No. 10 in
C.A.

No.

15-254.)

And

Pizzarelli’s

Opposition

to

the

Shappys’ Motion raises nearly identical arguments as the
Plaintiffs in Levi.

(Compare Pizzarelli Opp’n, ECF No. 12-

1 C.A. No. 15-254, with Levi Opp’n 3-6, ECF No. 17-1 in
C.A. No. 15-216.)
Given these similarities and that Plaintiffs in the
two cases are represented by the same counsel, the Court
need not write separately in the present action.
2

The Court

GRANTS the Shappys’ Motion to Dismiss for the reasons set
forth in the Memorandum and Order Dismissing the individual
defendants

in

Levi

and

dismisses

prejudice.

(See Levi Mem. & Order, Section III(C), ECF No.

21 in C.A. No. 15-216.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: February 12, 2016

3

the

Shappys

without