United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DANA W. WILEY, Plaintiff,
VINCE MCMAHON, World Wrestling Entertainment Chairman CEO, AND JOHN DUE, D-Generation X and NWO Wrestling employee's, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA L. DODGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
respectfully recommended that the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., and Vince
McMahon, (ECF No. 12), be granted and that Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants.
Procedural History and Factual Background
se Plaintiff Dana Wiley ("Plaintiff) commenced this
action against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
("WWE"), WWE's CEO Vince McMahon, (collectively
referred to as the "WWE Defendants"), and
"John Due D-Generation X [and] NWO Wrestling
Employee's [sic]." (ECF No. 3). After his original
Complaint was dismissed sua sponte without prejudice
by Chief Magistrate Judge Eddy, (ECF No. 6), he filed an
Amended Complaint on January 25, 2019. (ECF No. 7).
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on August 21, 1995,
he entered into a $75 million contract with Defendants for
his "brand trademark name D-Generation X NWO
t-shirt's [sic] and other merchandise[.]".
See Paragraph 2 of Introduction to Amended
Complaint. (ECF 7, at 1). While the Amended Complaint is
unclear, it appears that Plaintiff alleges that merchandise
bearing the names "D-Generation X" and
"NWO" was promoted by Defendants during an
ill-defined period of time ending on September 2,
2019. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 5).
Plaintiff claims that he sent a cease and desist letter to
Defendants demanding that they release a copy of the contract
and pay him $75 million but they failed to do so.
(Id. ¶¶ 3, 4).
claims include breach of a "copyright contract" by
promoting his products but failing to pay him for sums
purportedly due under the contract. While it is far from
clear, Plaintiff also appears to assert a copyright
infringement claim and a trademark infringement claim under
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114 or §1125.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April
23, 2019. (ECF No. 12). In their Brief in Support of the
Motion to Dismiss, the WWE Defendants note that as of August
of 1995, Plaintiff was incarcerated, having been previously
sentenced on May 1, 1995, for a five to twenty-year term for
armed robbery. (ECF No. 13, at 1-2). Moreover, on the specific
date that the contract was allegedly executed, Plaintiff was
in the Lawrence County Jail for a sentencing hearing on an
unrelated assault charge and was later transferred to the
State Correctional Institution at Greene. (Id. at
2013 "emergency petition for review," Plaintiff
asserted various copyright claims regarding a "hard
drive disc" of a television broadcast on August 21, 1995
(the same date that he . claims he entered into contract with
the WWE Defendants) and that President Clinton had mailed him
a check for $75 million (the same damages that he claims to
be at issue here). (Id. at 2-3).
large measure, Plaintiffs Response in Opposition does not
address the issues raised by the WWE Defendants. (ECF No.
19). While Plaintiff does allege that several WWE
personalities attended his August, 1995 sentencing in
Lawrence County at which time they had Plaintiff sign the
contract that he claims is at issue in this case and
Plaintiff gave them "NWO/DX" t-shirts, the Amended
Complaint makes no such allegation. (Id. at 1).
Otherwise, the Response references individuals and events
that do not appear to have any bearing on the claims asserted
in this case. (Id. at 1-2).
Standard of Review
order to survive a motion to dismiss that is brought pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint must include factual allegations that "state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). "[W]ithout some factual allegation in the
complaint, a claimant cannot satisfy the requirement that he
or she provide not only 'fair notice' but also the
'grounds' on which the claim rests."
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232
(3d Cir. 2008). In determining whether a plaintiff has met
this standard, a court must reject legal conclusions
unsupported by factual allegations, "[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements;" "labels and
conclusions;" and '"naked assertion[s]'
devoid of further factual enhancement.'"
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted). Mere
"possibilities" of misconduct are insufficient.
Id. at 679.
deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must consider only
the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of
public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if
the complainant's claims are based upon these
documents." Mayer ...