DIRECTV, LLC v. Wright
1:15-cv-00474
W.D.N.Y.Jun 29, 2017Background
- DirecTV sued Paul and Theresa Wright (doing business as Anametrics Cable) alleging breach of Residential Account contracts and illegal redistribution of DirecTV programming in Buffalo, NY.
- Paul Wright, proceeding pro se, filed multiple motions to dismiss after the complaint was filed.
- His first Rule 12(b)(6) motion was denied; the Court ordered Wright to answer the complaint.
- Wright subsequently filed a second Rule 12(b)(6) motion asserting a preexisting contractual relationship and a third motion (construed as Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join indispensable parties under Rule 19) arguing DirecTV’s agents/contractors were not joined.
- The Court evaluated the successive motions under Rule 12(g)(2) (waiver of defenses omitted from earlier motions) and on the merits regarding sufficiency of the complaint and Rule 19 joinder requirements.
- The Court denied both of Wright’s later motions and directed him to file an answer by July 31, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) | DirecTV contends complaint states sufficient factual allegations to proceed | Wright argues a preexisting contractual relationship absolves him (new defense) | Denied — court assumes truth of DirecTV’s allegations at pleading stage; factual defenses may be raised later |
| Failure to join parties under Rule 12(b)(7)/Rule 19 | DirecTV implicitly argues existing parties suffice; joinder not shown necessary | Wright contends DirecTV’s agents/contractors are indispensable and should be joined | Denied — Wright failed to show that absent parties are necessary or claim an interest requiring joinder; no basis to dismiss |
| Procedural waiver under Rule 12(g)(2) | DirecTV relies on procedural rules to bar successive motions | Wright reasserts defenses not raised in his earlier motion(s) | Denied — court holds Wright waived defenses available earlier; successive motions improper absent specified exceptions |
| Dismissal vs. joinder remedy under Rule 19 | DirecTV would prefer joinder or proceeding against current parties | Wright seeks dismissal for nonjoinder | Denied — even if joinder were required, dismissal is disfavored; no showing that dismissal is necessary or that prejudice exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se submissions construed liberally)
- Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6 (2d Cir. 1994) (courts afford pro se litigants special solicitude)
- Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 421 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (on a motion to dismiss the court assumes truth of plaintiff’s factual allegations)
- Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. N.Y. State Thruway Auth., 795 F.3d 351 (2d Cir. 2015) (courts are extremely reluctant to dismiss for nonjoinder; dismissal only when defect cannot be cured and serious prejudice results)