From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD. v. FALU

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 4, 2008
06 Civ. 4457 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008)

Opinion

06 Civ. 4457 (JGK).

February 4, 2008


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


The plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims of counter-plaintiff Janet Falu pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In deciding a motion to dismiss counterclaims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations in the counterclaims are accepted as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the counter-plaintiff's favor. McCarthy v. Dun Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2007); Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, No. 06 Civ. 5936, 2007 WL 4267190, at *4-*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2007). Where, as here, the counter-plaintiff is proceeding pro se, although the same standards for dismissal apply, a court should give the pro se litigant special latitude in responding to a motion to dismiss.See McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 279 (2d Cir. 1999); Cooney v. Consol. Edison, 220 F. Supp. 2d 241, 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). The Court should not dismiss the counterclaims if the counter-plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).

In this case, the counterclaims should be dismissed without prejudice because the counter-plaintiff has failed to satisfy theTwombly standard. The counterclaims contain conclusory statements, which are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss, and do not state facts sufficient to raise the counter-plaintiff's right to relief above the speculative level.Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965; Smith v. Local 819 I.B.T. Pension Plan, 291 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir. 2002).

The counter-plaintiff responds that the counter-defendant has not adequately responded to discovery, but whether or not the counter-defendant has satisfied its discovery obligations does not affect the question of whether the counter-plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for each of the alleged counterclaims. Moreover, the dismissal of the counterclaims should not affect the discovery obligations of the parties in this case.

The motion to dismiss the counterclaims is therefore granted without prejudice to the filing of amended counterclaims. Any amended counterclaims must be filed within twenty days.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD. v. FALU

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 4, 2008
06 Civ. 4457 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008)
Case details for

KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD. v. FALU

Case Details

Full title:KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD., Plaintiff, v. JANET FALU and 178 SHERMAN…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Feb 4, 2008

Citations

06 Civ. 4457 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008)

Citing Cases

Walton v. Hadley

See, e.g., Weisman Celler Spett & Modlin, P.C. v. Trans-Lux Corp., No. 12 CIV. 5141 JMF, 2014 WL 476348, at…

Privado Mktg. Grp. LLC v. Eleftheria Rest Corp.

See, e.g., Weisman Celler Spett & Modlin, P.C. v. Trans-Lux Corp., No. 12 CIV. 5141 JMF, 2014 WL 476348, at…