The following brief factual summary is drawn from Cablevision’s amended complaint (the “Complaint”). Cablevision entered into a licensing agreement with Viacom in2012. In the negotiations, Viacom required Cablevision to license a dozen less popular programing networks (termed “Suite Networks” in the Complaint) in order to gain license rightsto what Cablevision alleges are “four commercially critical” programming networks, whichCablevision terms “Core Networks.” Cablevision alleges that Viacom threatened it with asubstantial financial “penalty” for declining to purchase the licenses for, and distribute, the Suite Networks along with the Core Networks. Cablevision further alleges that the channels on whichit is able to offer programming are limited and that, were it to be able to forego the Suite Networks, it would seek out programming from other suppliers. D
In deciding a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court accepts as true the non-conclusory factualallegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. Roth v.Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 501 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). “A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of elements of a cause of action will not do.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (internal citations omitted). Rather, to survive amotion to dismiss, a complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausibleon its face.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The Court addresses each of Cablevision’s claims, and Viacom’s principal arguments, in turn.
Case 1:13-cv-01278-LTS Document 45 Filed 06/20/14 Page 2 of 7