Flatley v. Skechers, Inc. et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants Robert Greenberg and Michael Greenberg. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 2/27/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
THOMAS J. FLATLEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SKECHERS, INC., ROBERT GREENBERG, )
CEO, AND MICHAEL GREENBERG,
)
CHAIRMAN,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)

C.A. No. 16-564 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before
Complaint

the
as

Court

to

is

Defendants’

Defendants

Michael

Motion

to

Greenberg

Dismiss
and

the

Robert

Greenberg. (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is GRANTED.
Pro se Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringed on his
patented shoe-lacing system. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Complaint
identifies three Defendants: (1)
(2)

Michael

Greenberg,

Skechers’

Skechers, Inc.
Chairman;

and

(“Skechers”);
(3)

Robert

Greenberg, Skechers’ Chief Executive Officer. Defendants move to
dismiss the Complaint as to Defendants Michael Greenberg and
Robert Greenberg. The Motion argues for dismissal for lack of
personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules

of

Civil

Procedure.

(Mot.

to

Dismiss,

ECF

No.

8.)

Plaintiff has not provided an objection to Defendants’ Motion,
and the deadline for any response has passed.
Plaintiff

has

the

burden

of

establishing

personal

jurisdiction. See Phillips v. Prairie Eye Ctr., 530 F.3d 22, 26
(1st Cir. 2008). While this case involves a pro se Plaintiff,
and “the Court must view pro se complaints liberally , . .

pro

se litigants are not absolved from compliance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.” Saykin v. Donald W. Wyatt Det. Ctr.,
No. C.A. 07-182ML, 2008 WL 2128059, at *3 (D.R.I. May 20, 2008).
Therefore,

Plaintiff

“sufficient

to

is

support

required
findings

to
of

provide
all

some

facts

evidence

essential

to

personal jurisdiction.” Phillips, 530 F.3d at 26.
In

this

Defendants’

case,

Motion,

Plaintiff
let

has

alone

failed

provide

to

even

sufficient

respond

to

evidence

of

personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, a review of the Complaint,
even viewed under the liberal standard required for a pro se
plaintiff,
personal

fails

to

jurisdiction

provide
over

any

facts

Defendants

tending
Michael

to

establish

Greenberg

and

Robert Greenberg. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as
to Defendants Michael Greenberg and Robert Greenberg for lack of
personal

jurisdiction

(ECF

No.

8)

is

therefore

GRANTED.1

Defendants also argue that the Complaint against Defendants
Michael Greenberg and Robert Greenberg should be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Because the Court grants Defendants’
2
1

Defendant Skechers is the sole remaining Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: February 27, 2017

Motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), the Court need not address
Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
3