UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDAMIAMI DIVISIONCASE NO. 11-20427-CIV-JORDANDISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al.,Plaintiffsvs.HOTFILE CORP. et al.,Defendants ________________________________________ ))))))))
As explained below, Hotfile Corp.’s and Anton Titov’s motion to dismiss [D.E. 50] is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
, and the motion for a hearing [D.E. 51] is
DENIED AS MOOT
.Count I of the complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
. Hotfile and Mr. Titov shall answer Count II by July 22, 2011.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the plaintiff must plead “either director inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.”
Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc.
, 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir.2001). The court must limit its consideration to the complaint.
See GSW, Inc. v. Long County
, 999F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir. 1993). The factual allegations are accepted as true and all reasonableinferences from these allegations are drawn in the plaintiff’s favor.
See Roberts v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
, 146 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 1998). The plaintiff, however, must allege more than“labels and conclusions.”
Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc.
, 500 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir.2007) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544, 554–55 (2007)). The factual allegations inthe complaint must “possess enough heft” to set forth “a plausible entitlement to relief.”
The plaintiffs, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., UniversalStudios Productions LLLP, Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.,are motion-picture studios [D.E. 1 ¶ 15]. As motion-picture studios, they create and distribute films,for which they own the copyrights [