MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE, JKB-15-0402. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20150513969
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 12, 2015
Latest Update: May 12, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM JAMES K. BREDAR , District Judge . Now pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, for a more definite statement, and to quash (ECF No. 8). The Plaintiff has responded (ECF No. 9). A hearing would not aid the Court in deciding the issues. The Motion will be DENIED. The Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in this District. Its Complaints generally all follow the same pattern with only the most minor variations. For the reasons set out
Summary: MEMORANDUM JAMES K. BREDAR , District Judge . Now pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, for a more definite statement, and to quash (ECF No. 8). The Plaintiff has responded (ECF No. 9). A hearing would not aid the Court in deciding the issues. The Motion will be DENIED. The Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in this District. Its Complaints generally all follow the same pattern with only the most minor variations. For the reasons set out ..
More
MEMORANDUM
JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.
Now pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, for a more definite statement, and to quash (ECF No. 8). The Plaintiff has responded (ECF No. 9). A hearing would not aid the Court in deciding the issues. The Motion will be DENIED.
The Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in this District. Its Complaints generally all follow the same pattern with only the most minor variations. For the reasons set out in other cases decided in this District, see, e.g., Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, WDQ-14-748, 2015 WL 857408 (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2015); Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, PWG-13-365, 2014 WL 7188822 (D. Md. Dec 16, 2014), and for the reasons set out in the Plaintiff's response (ECF No. 9), the Complaint in the instant case passes muster under the Iqbal/Twombly Standard and is sufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The claim is plausible. Further, the contention that the subpoena in issue should be quashed is without merit. An Order denying the Motion will issue.
Source: Leagle
