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
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?