AO 72(Rev. 8/82)
above the speculative level.”
, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, acomplaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on itsface.”
, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (internal citation omitted).In
, the Supreme Court recently clarified the two-step approach district courtsare to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, a district court must accept as true allwell-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to theassumption of truth.
. at 1950. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice.
. at 1949. Second, a district court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief.
. at 1950. Aclaim is facially plausible when the plaintiff’s complaint alleges facts that allows the court to drawa reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.
at 1949. Wherethe complaint does not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, thecomplaint has “alleged—but not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
. (internalquotation marks omitted). When the claims in a complaint have not crossed the line fromconceivable to plausible, the complaint must be dismissed.
, 550 U.S. at 570.
Justin.tv seeks dismissal of each of Zuffa’s non-copyright claims, arguing that theyimproperly duplicate Zuffa’s copyright claims. Further, Zuffa argues that the eleventh and twelfthclaims for violation of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605, (what is colloquiallyknown as “stealing cable”) are both barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47U.S.C. § 230, and are inapplicable to the factual allegations here. Further, Zuffa stipulates to thedismissal of its 10th claim (Nevada unfair trade practices), and thus, the Court dismisses this claimand will not discuss it further.///3
Case 2:11-cv-00114-RLH -VCF Document 28 Filed 03/08/12 Page 3 of 9