IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NATHANIEL CLAYBROOKS and CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., WARNER HORIZON TELEVISION, INC., NEXT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., NZK PRODUCTIONS, INC., and MICHAEL FLEISS,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiffs Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of all others similarly situated, for their complaint against Defendants American Broadcast Companies, Inc. (“ABC”), Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (“Warner”), Next Entertainment, Inc. (“Next”), NZK Productions, Inc. (“NZK”), and Michael Fleiss (collectively “Defendants”), allege, upon personal knowledge as to the allegations concerning themselves and upon information and belief based on investigation of counsel as to all other matters, as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This class action seeks redress for the intentional exclusion of people of color from the lead role on ABC’s popular television shows The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. 2. Central to this action, in the words of the Supreme Court, is a glaring and “inexorable zero.” Never, over 10 years and a combined total of 23 seasons of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, has either show ever featured a single person of color—whether African

Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1

American, Latino, Asian, or any other minority race or ethnicity—in the central role of the “Bachelor” or “Bachelorette.” In 16 seasons of The Bachelor and 7 seasons of The Bachelorette, every person featured in the lead role on either show has been white.
3. All applicants of color, including plaintiffs Nathanial Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson, have been denied the same opportunity as their white counterparts to compete for the role of the Bachelor and Bachelorette due to their race and/or color.
4. This action is brought by Plaintiffs as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of all other persons of color who have attempted to contract with Defendants for the role of the Bachelor or Bachelorette but been denied the equal opportunity for selection on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and California Civil Code §§ 51 and 51.5.
5. Following the Civil War, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, federal law has guaranteed every person within the United States “the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . .” This longstanding law was intended to give African Americans (many of whom were recently freed from slavery) equal contracting rights as whites. It plainly prohibits whites from refusing to contract with African Americans because of their race. California law provides similar protection.
6. These laws guarantee equal opportunity to contract in business, commerce, and media regardless of one’s skin color. Such equal opportunity is essential for members of all races to participate fully in the nation’s economic growth. But the Defendants, including one of the leading broadcasters in the country of the images that shape our views of who we are, have deliberately chosen to deny these rights to persons of color despite well-publicized criticisms of the exclusion of racial minorities from these programs.
2 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 2

7. In addition to violating the law, the deliberate exclusion of people of color from the roles of the Bachelor and Bachelorette underscores the significant barriers that people of color continue to face in media and the broader marketplace.
8. Moreover, studies show that images presented in the media play a substantial role in the formation of peoples’ racial attitudes and opinions. The absence of Bachelors and Bachelorettes of color suggests, to both white viewers and viewers of color, that interracial or non-white relationships are undesirable or unworthy of the nationally broadcasted platform of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.
9. As a matter of law, defendants cannot justify their exclusion of racial minorities based on the perceived racial biases of members of their television audience or their advertisers.
10. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop this exclusion of class members from the leading roles in these shows. Plaintiffs also seek awards of punitive damages for Defendants’ deliberate violations of federal and state law and to deter others from similarly refusing to contract with racial minorities out of fears that their customers might react negatively to the results of treating those minorities fairly and equally.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. The court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as to Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as to Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination in violation of California Civil Code §§ 51 and 51.5. 12. Venue is proper in this district because Defendants have done and regularly do business in this district, a substantial number of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place in this district, and Plaintiffs reside in this district.
3 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 3

THE PARTIES 13. Nathaniel Claybrooks is an African American adult male who lives in Nashville, Tennessee. 14. Mr. Claybrooks is an upstanding member of the Nashville community. He is a small business owner—he owns a barber shop and an auto detailing business in Nashville—and an investor who helps local businesses get started. In addition, he regularly testifies on behalf of parolees as an employer who is willing to hire those who are formerly incarcerated. 15. Mr. Claybrooks attended undergraduate school at Middle Tennessee State University, where he starred on the school’s football team as a linebacker. Mr. Claybrooks was designated All Conference in 1994 and 1995 and All American in 1995. He also earned Most Valuable Player – Defense while on the team. 16. Mr. Claybrooks was offered a free-agent contract by the Miami Dolphins after his third year of college. He instead decided to stay at Middle Tennessee State to finish his degree. Mr. Claybrooks graduated in 1997, earning a Bachelor of Science in Sports Medicine and minoring in Psychology. 17. In 1999, Mr. Claybrooks joined the Arena Football League as a linebacker. He played for the Nashville Kats in 1999 and the Augusta Stallions in 2000. He then played for Nashville’s semi-professional team, the Nashville Storm, from 2001 to 2011. 18. Christopher Johnson is an African American adult male who lives in Nashville, Tennessee. 19. Mr. Johnson is currently preparing to try out for teams in the National Football League as a wide receiver. He also plans to serve his country by enlisting with the Air Force in the near future.
4 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 4

20. Mr. Johnson is an active member of his church and is frequently involved in charitable services in the Nashville community, including feeding the homeless.
21. In high school, Mr. Johnson was a star football player and one of the best wide receivers in the state of Tennessee. He was recruited by a number of schools to play collegiate football after high school.
22. Mr. Johnson chose Tennessee State University, where he starred on the football team and majored in Business Administration and Marketing. As a wide receiver and one of the team’s best players, Mr. Johnson became the third all-time leader in receiving yardage at Tennessee State University.
23. After graduating from Tennessee State University, Mr. Johnson became a permanent substitute teacher and football coach at J.O. Johnson High School in Hunstville, Alabama before moving back to Nashville to seek full time employment as a teacher.
24. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“ABC”) is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. ABC also conducts business throughout the state of Tennessee and maintains more than 8 employees in the state. ABC is a network television company that broadcasts national programming, including The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.
25. Next Entertainment, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. Next is a television production company involved in the production of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.
26. Warner Horizon Television, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Burbank, California. Warner is a television production company involved in the production of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.
5 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 5

27. NZK Productions, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Burbank, California. NZK is a television production company involved in the production of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.
28. Michael Fleiss, a white male, is the President of Next Entertainment, Inc. He is the creator and primary producer of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ON THE BACHELOR 29. The Bachelor, which debuted on ABC in 2002, is a popular reality television show in which approximately 25 women compete for the affections of a single man – the “Bachelor.” Each season of the show features a different Bachelor and a different pool of women. There have been 16 seasons of The Bachelor since it first aired in 2002. 30. The show has had as many as 25 million viewers tune into one episode. Combined, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, and related enterprises, have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. 31. Over the course of each season, the Bachelor eliminates women one-by-one until settling on the woman with which he wants to engage in a monogamous relationship. In many cases, the Bachelor proposes to the final woman he chooses. 32. In 2003, The Bachelorette debuted as a spin-off of The Bachelor. The two shows are identical except that the gender roles are reversed – a woman occupies the lead role and approximately 25 men compete to be the winner. There have been a total of 7 seasons of The Bachelorette since it first aired in 2003. The next season is scheduled to start on May 14, 2012. 33. Upon information and belief, the person selected to be the Bachelor or Bachelorette signs a contract with Defendants setting the contours of their relationship. The contract is binding on the parties over the course of the particular season.
6 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6

34. Upon information and belief, the person selected to be the Bachelor or Bachelorette is paid a stipend for agreeing to be a part of the show. Their housing, food, and travel expenses are fully paid for by Defendants. Upon information and belief, the show’s producers exercise significant control over the Bachelor’s and Bachelorette’s conduct and words during filming.
35. Upon information and belief, persons cast as the Bachelor or Bachelorette continue to enjoy many benefits of being in the lead role after the season is over, including but not limited to financial and professional benefits stemming from newly-acquired “celebrity” status and increased notoriety.
36. Like all television shows, The Bachelor’s and The Bachelorette’s profitability depends on their ability to attract viewers and, by extension, advertisers. The more viewers there are, the more money Defendants can raise in advertising revenue.
37. According to ABC’s website for The Bachelor, “there has been an eclectic mix of bachelors over the years. We’ve seen a doctor, football star, prince, millionaire, [and a] single dad.”
38. Despite this “eclectic mix,” Defendants’ selections for the Bachelor and the Bachelorette have led to an inexorable zero. Over the course of 23 seasons, not one time has the show’s eclectic mix ever included a Bachelor or Bachelorette who is a person of color. Each of the 23 people who have filled the role of the Bachelor and Bachelorette—despite their apparent professional diversity—have all been white. Not surprisingly, Emily Maynard, the Bachelorette selected for the show’s upcoming eighth season, is white as well.
39. Not only has every Bachelor and Bachelorette in the shows’ 23-season history been white, but nearly all of the “suitors” are white as well. Females of color are few and far
7 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 7

between on The Bachelor and, to the extent the show ever does contain non-white female contestants, they tend to be eliminated early on in the show. The same is true of males of color on The Bachelorette. The result is an almost all or entirely all white group of contestants featured on the shows every week that they air.
40. The shows’ complete lack of people of color is no accident. As illustrated below, and upon information and belief, numerous people of color have applied to be the Bachelor or Bachelorette. These applicants were denied the same opportunity to become the next Bachelor or Bachelorette as white contestants not because they were unsuitable for the role or could not contribute to the show’s “eclectic mix,” but solely because of the perceived risk that casting a Bachelor or Bachelorette who is a person of color would alienate the show’s majority-white viewership. Intentional discrimination, even if based on perceptions of customer bias, is prohibited by Section 1981 and sections 51 and 51.5 of the California Civil Code.
DEFENDANTS’ DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT 41. Over the course of the 10-year history of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and as a matter of corporate policy refused to cast people of color in the role of the Bachelor and Bachelorette. 42. Upon information and belief, Defendants refused to seriously consider applicants of color and instead only cast people in the role of the Bachelor or Bachelorette who they believed would maintain the show’s viewership and, by extension, the show’s advertising revenue. As the show’s 23 Bachelors and Bachelorettes plainly illustrate, this meant only contracting with white applicants. 43. Defendants have long been on notice of public concern that not a single Bachelor or Bachelorette in 23 seasons has been a person of color. The absence of Bachelors and
8 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 8

Bachelorettes of color on the two shows has been well-documented and is the subject of frequent commentary. For example, the Los Angeles Times has run an article pointing out the all-white cast of Bachelors, as have other online media outlets such as The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, and The Grio.
44. The Los Angeles Times article stated that “ABC executives maintained two years ago that the show was ‘exploring’ the possibilities of casting a person of color in the pivotal role.” Nevertheless, “insiders said producers had little interest in pursuing a more diverse cast, and were unwilling to vary the chemistry of a hugely popular series and wary of a potential controversy stemming from an interracial romance.”
45. Michael Fleiss, creator of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette and President of Next, has, on at least one occasion, responded publicly to the outpour of commentary on the show’s racial composition. He has stated that the lack of people of color on the show is due to a lack of diverse applicants. Specifically, in an interview with Entertainment Weekly he said: “We always want to cast for ethnic diversity. It’s just that for whatever reason, they don't come forward. I wish they would.” As the facts related to Mr. Claybrooks and Mr. Johnson clearly illustrate below, those statements are patently untrue, and a pretext for racial discrimination.
46. In response to Mr. Fleiss’s public statement, Shawn Ryan, a well-known television producer, stated: “They blame minorities for ‘not coming forward.’ What a joke. Straight up racism. They just don’t think America will watch black bachelor or root for mixedrace dating.” Among other things, Mr. Ryan created the television dramas The Shield and Chicago Code, both of which have included leading roles played by actors of color.
47. The exclusion of people of color from The Bachelor and The Bachelorette has become so extreme that an Oregon resident, Lamar Hurd, has recently embarked on a national
9 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 9

campaign to become “the first Black Bachelor.” His efforts have garnered significant national attention since March 30, 2012, including articles in The Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, BET.com, and Essence.com. Mr. Hurd’s campaign has also been covered on television by local and entertainment news programs.
48. In casting the roles of the Bachelor and Bachelorette, Defendants solicit mail-in applications via their website and hold casting calls in various locations across the country when looking to select someone for the next season of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, including Nashville, Tennessee.
49. The applications require the applicant to fill in basic information, as well as physical characteristics such as height, weight, hair color, and eye color. The questionnaire is used for evaluating potential participants and inquires about the applicant’s education, family life, past relationships, hobbies, talents, and ideal mate. The applications also ask, among other things, why the applicant would be a good husband or wife, and why the applicant is “America’s Most Eligible” Bachelor or Bachelorette.
50. In addition to filling out the questionnaire, applicants are also required to send in 5-15 recent photographs, including “close-up shots and full body pics.” Applicants are also encouraged to submit videos of themselves.
51. Applicants selected as semi-finalists are flown out to Los Angeles for additional interviews. Semi-finalists must also submit a packet of additional paperwork, including a confidentiality agreement, a general release, a background check authorization form, and a medical history form.
10 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 10

52. In 2011, Mr. Johnson completed the paper application and questionnaire to become the next Bachelor, and, in compliance with the application’s instructions, had professional pictures taken of himself to include with the application.
53. Shortly after completing the application and questionnaire, Mr. Johnson went to a hotel in the Brentwood/Franklin neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee where Defendants were holding a casting call. He went to submit his application in person and complete any other prerequisites—such as an interview—to be considered a candidate for the next Bachelor.
54. When Mr. Johnson walked into the hotel lobby, he was immediately stopped by one of Defendants’ employees who asked why Mr. Johnson was there. Mr. Johnson stated to the employee, who was white, that he had the necessary materials and had come to apply for The Bachelor. The white employee stated that he would take Mr. Johnson’s application materials and be sure to pass them on to the show’s casting directors.
55. As Mr. Johnson handed the white employee his application materials, he noticed several other persons who appeared to be hopeful Bachelor applicants walking past him and the white employee and proceeding into the hotel. None of the other potential applicants was stopped by any of Defendants’ employees.
56. Mr. Johnson handed the white employee his application and pictures. The employee did not give Mr. Johnson any further instructions. Mr. Johnson proceeded to turn around and leave the hotel. He was never contacted by Defendants regarding his application.
57. Mr. Johnson’s attempt to apply for the Bachelor was cut short by Defendants’ employee. He was denied the same opportunity to become the next Bachelor as other non-black applicants.
11 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 11

58. In 2011, Nathaniel Claybrooks went to the Indigo Hotel in downtown Nashville, Tennessee where Defendants were conducting a casting call for The Bachelor.
59. When he arrived, he was instructed to fill out the necessary application and questionnaire before being interviewed by Defendants.
60. Several other hopeful applicants filled out applications and sat in the waiting room. Every employee of Defendants at the Indigo Hotel appeared to be white. Mr. Claybrooks waited as the white applicants before him were interviewed. Their interviews took approximately 45 minutes.
61. Mr. Claybrooks was interviewed on camera by one of Defendants’ employees, who was white. During the interview, Mr. Claybrooks answered personal questions, including what he likes to do in his free time, whether he goes to church, and whether he has ever been married. At one point during the interview, the interviewer asked Mr. Claybrooks to stand up and conduct a 360 degree turn for the camera so that the interviewer could get a full view of his body.
62. However, Mr. Claybrooks’ interview lasted for a much shorter time than the interviews with white applicants who went before him. Mr. Claybrooks felt that he was being rushed through the process and was not given the same opportunity as his white counterparts
63. At the conclusion of the interview, Defendants told Mr. Claybrooks that they would contact him regarding his application. Mr. Claybrooks has not heard from Defendants since.
64. Defendants instead selected Ben Flajnik as the Bachelor for its 2012 season. Mr. Flajnik is white.
12 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 12

65. Both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Claybrooks were well-qualified to become the next Bachelor. They are outgoing, personable people who are upstanding members of their community. Upon information and belief, their applications were never seriously considered by Defendants because of their skin color.
66. As stated above, Defendants have never selected a person of color to be the Bachelor in the show’s 10-year history.
67. The absence of a Bachelor or Bachelorette of color over 23 seasons is not due to a lack of qualified applications from people of color. Rather, minority applicants are purposefully provided less than an equal opportunity on the basis of race. Defendants have engaged in an intentional scheme to deny minority applicants the same opportunity to be seriously considered as the next Bachelor or Bachelorette. Defendants have continued to knowingly and intentionally deny people of color that opportunity despite being aware that the two shows have never featured a person of color in the lead role.
68. Upon information and belief, by only hiring white applicants, Defendants are making the calculation that minorities in lead roles and interracial dating is unappealing to the shows’ audiences. The refusal to hire minority applicants is a conscious attempt to minimize the risk of alienating their majority-white viewership and the advertisers targeting that viewership. Nevertheless, such discrimination is impermissible under federal and state law.
69. Defendants’ practice of only casting white persons in the role of the Bachelor and Bachelorette is furthered by Defendants’ practice of selecting a person for the lead role from the pool of male suitors that appears on The Bachelorette and the pool of female suitors that appears on The Bachelor. According to Michael Fleiss, the show’s creator, they are unlikely to go back to casting “unknown” Bachelors and Bachelorettes: “I can’t imagine how we would ever get
13 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 13

back to that. [Selecting the Bachelor and Bachelorette from the pool of male and female suitors on The Bachelorette and The Bachelor] works so well for us. People are invested in these characters, they are who they are tuning in for. We have enough new blood by design. We have one returning character with 25 or 30 new faces. I don’t think we need new blood across the board.”
70. Like the group of female suitors on The Bachelor, the group of male suitors on The Bachelorette has been overwhelmingly white over the course of the show’s 7 seasons. Just as with the role of the Bachelor, the racial homogeneity among the group of suitors is the product of intentional discrimination. In addition, Defendants have only selected as the Bachelor members of the group of suitors on The Bachelorette who are white. They have also only selected as the Bachelorette members of the group of suitors on The Bachelor who are white. This practice is part and parcel of Defendants’ scheme to deny people of color the same employment and contracting opportunities as their white counterparts.
71. A number of similar television shows, airing on different networks, have featured an abundant number of racial minorities. Several shows on VH1, including Flavor of Love, I Love New York, and Rock of Love, use the same format as The Bachelor and The Bachelorette but have featured a diverse cast of love interests and, in the case of the first two, a person of color in the lead role. These shows demonstrate that a large number of people of color are willing and interested in participating in television shows like The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.
72. In contrast with The Bachelor, ABC’s popular television shows Dancing with the Stars and Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition (“Extreme Makeover”) have featured a number people of color.
14 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 14

73. Dancing with the Stars is an elimination-style game show in which various celebrities partner with a professional dancer and participate in a ballroom dance competition. In the upcoming season alone, five out of the 12 contestants are people of color.
74. Extreme Makeover is a reality television show in which each episode features an overweight person’s attempt to lose weight and live a healthier lifestyle. During the previous season of Extreme Makeover, at least two of the eight people featured on the show were persons of color.
75. Unlike The Bachelor and The Bachelorette—the central theme of which is finding “love”—Dancing with the Stars and Extreme Makeover only involve platonic, as opposed to romantic, relationships among the cast members. This indicates that the presence of people of color in ABC programming is acceptable so long as there is no exhibition of actual romance between non-whites or whites and people of color.
76. The Bachelor and The Bachelorette are examples of purposeful segregation in the media that perpetuates racial stereotypes and denies persons of color of opportunities in the entertainment industry. Studies have shown that television is extremely influential in shaping the way people view one another and themselves. See Ardis C. Martin, “Television Media as a Potential Negative Factor in the Racial Identity Development of African American Youth,” Academic Psychiatry (2008), available at http://ap.psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/AP/2655/08AP338.PDF.
77. The exclusion of people of color from The Bachelor and The Bachelorette sends the message—to whites and racial minorities—that only all-white relationships are desirable and worthy of national attention.
15 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 15

78. With such a massive viewership, Defendants have the opportunity to help normalize minority and interracial relationships by showcasing them to mainstream America on The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. Instead, by discriminatorily refusing to cast people of color in the lead roles (as well as in the role of suitor), Defendants play into the perceived racial fears of their audience and perpetuate outdated racial taboos.
79. In addition, studies show that people of color continue to be excluded from business and commerce despite longstanding laws that prohibit racial discrimination in contracting. See The Department of Commerce, “Compelling Interest for Race- and GenderConscious Federal Contracting Programs: An Update to the May 23, 1996 Review of Barriers for Minority- and Women-Owned Business,” (2010) available at http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2010/november/hinson092210compellin g_interest_narrative.pdf. This case represents one example of those continued barriers.
80. Most importantly, for the purposes of this class action, Defendants have intentionally denied Plaintiffs and many other applicants of color the equal opportunity as whites to contract without regard to skin color. This willful exclusion of people of color from the role of the Bachelor and Bachelorette is a plain violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and sections 51 and 51.5 of the California Civil Code.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 81. This case is brought as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief through the establishment of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), as well as punitive damages. Plaintiffs seek certification of this action as a class action on behalf of all people of color who have unsuccessfully applied to become the Bachelor or Bachelorette during
16 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 16

the liability period and met all of the baseline eligibility requirements set by Defendants. This case is properly brought as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for the reasons set forth in the following paragraphs.
82. Membership in the Class is so numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable. The number of Class Members is unknown but can be readily determined by Defendants’ records. Plaintiffs reasonably estimate that there are, at a minimum, over a hundred persons in the Class.
83. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class, and Plaintiffs have no adverse interests vis-à-vis the other Class members. Although Plaintiffs are both male and some class members will be female, this case is only about racial discrimination.
84. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and have retained counsel experienced and competent in contract discrimination class actions and complex litigation.
85. There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to all Class members which control this litigation and predominate over any individual issues. These include:
a. Whether Defendants engaged in a common practice or policy of denying applicants of color the same opportunity to be considered as white applicants;
b. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices are racially motivated; c. Whether Defendants intentionally excluded people of color from the role of
the Bachelor and Bachelorette in order to appease the show’s consumers and advertisers;
17 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 17

d. Whether any such exclusion constitutes a legitimate basis for Defendants’ racial discriminatory policies and practices;
e. Whether Defendants’ stated reasons (such as there are no people of color interested in the lead roles) for failing to cast people of color as the Bachelor and Bachelorette are pretextual;
f. Whether Defendants were put on notice that the two shows have never featured a person of color in the lead roles of Bachelor and Bachelorette;
g. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants;
h. Whether Defendants’ conduct was undertaken with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members to be free from racial discrimination to warrant an award of punitive damages;
86. Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making it appropriate for declaratory or injunctive relief on a class-wide basis by denying people of color the opportunity to become the next Bachelor or Bachelorette.
87. A class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Absent a class action, applicants of color will continue to suffer racial discrimination by Defendants, whose violations of law will proceed without remedy.
88. Most individual Class members have little ability to prosecute an individual action due to the complexity of the issues involved in this litigation, the size and scope of Defendant’s policies and practices, the significant costs attendant to litigation on this scale, and the comparatively small (although significant) damages suffered by individual Class members.
18 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 18

89. This action will result in the orderly and expeditious administration of Class claims. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniform decisions will be ensured.
90. This action presents no difficulty that would impede its management by the Court as a class action.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1
(Racial Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981) 91. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 90 as if fully set forth herein. 92. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and Class members on the basis of their race by denying them the same opportunity to contract and become the Bachelor or Bachelorette as white applicants. 93. By refusing to genuinely consider applicants of color for the lead role on The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, Defendants engaged in a common scheme of unlawfully discriminating against non-whites in the formation of contracts and therefore denied them the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. 94. Defendants have been put on notice that the two shows have never featured a person of color in the lead roles of Bachelor and Bachelorette. 95. At no time have Defendants undertaken corrective action to ameliorate their racially discriminatory policy and practices now inherent in their casting process. 96. Defendants’ actions violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
19 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 19

97. Defendants have damaged Plaintiffs and members of the Class because they have suffered economic loss and been denied economic advantage as a result of Defendants’ illegal racial discrimination.
98. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs request relief as provided in the prayer for relief below.
COUNT 2 (Discrimination on the Basis of Race in violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act,
California Civil Code § 51) 99. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 98 as if fully set forth herein. 100. Defendants are business establishments within the meaning of California Civil Code § 51. 101. Defendants created and/or maintained policies and/or practices by their predominantly white leadership that are discriminatory against people of color. 102. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and Class members on the basis of race by denying them full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services afforded to the white applicants selected as the Bachelor and Bachelorette. 103. The pattern of inequity with respect to the roles of the Bachelor and Bachelorette is the result of an ongoing and continuous pattern and practice of intentional discrimination against people of color. 104. Defendants have been put on notice that the two shows have never featured a person of color in the lead roles of Bachelor and Bachelorette.
20 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 20

105. At no time have Defendants undertaken corrective action to ameliorate their racially discriminatory policy and practices now inherent in their casting process.
106. Defendants’ actions violate California Civil Code § 51. 107. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs and members of the Class injury. 108. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs request relief as provided in the prayer for relief below.
COUNT 3 (Discrimination on the Basis of Race in Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
California Civil Code § 51.5) 109. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 108 as if fully set forth herein. 110. Defendants are business establishments within the meaning of California Civil Code § 51.5. 111. Defendants created and/or maintained policies and/or practices by their predominantly white leadership that are discriminatory against people of color. 112. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and Class members on the basis of race by only selecting white applicants for the Bachelor and Bachelorette and refusing to select applicants of color. 113. The pattern of inequity with respect to the roles of the Bachelor and Bachelorette is the result of an ongoing and continuous pattern and practice of intentional discrimination against people of color. 114. Defendants have been put on notice that the two shows have never featured a person of color in the lead roles of Bachelor and Bachelorette.
21 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 21 of 24 PageID #: 21

115. At no time have Defendants undertaken corrective action to ameliorate their racially discriminatory policy and practices now inherent in their casting process.
116. Defendants’ actions violate California Civil Code § 51.5. 117. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs and members of the Class injury. 118. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs request relief as provided in the prayer for relief below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 1. That this case be maintained as a class action on behalf of the proposed class, that Plaintiffs be designated as representatives of the class, and that their counsel of record be designated as Class Counsel; 2. That the practices of the Defendants complained of herein be determined and adjudged to be in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and sections 51 and 51.5 of the California Civil Code; 3. That an injunction be issued prohibiting Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, and successors from engaging in the business practices complained of herein and requiring the adoption of appropriate policies and programs consistent with Defendants’ legal obligations to contract without regard to race; 4. That an injunction be issued requiring Defendants to consider persons of color as finalists for the role of the Bachelor and the Bachelorette;
22 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 22 of 24 PageID #: 22

5. That judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and the members of the Class set forth herein, and against Defendants;
6. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded punitive damages; 7. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded pre and post judgment interest; 8. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable; 9. That the Court award Plaintiffs and the members of the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the prosecution of this lawsuit; 10. That the Court retain jurisdiction over Defendants until such time as it is satisfied that they have remedied the practices complained of and are determined to be in full compliance with the law.

Dated: April 18, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ George E. Barrett

_

George E. Barrett, Esq.

Barrett Johnston, LLC

217 Second Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37201

Phone: (615) 244-2202

Fax: (615) 252-3798

gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

Cyrus Mehri, Esq. Michael P. Lieder, Esq. Zachary W. Best, Esq. 1250 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 822-5100
23
Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 23 of 24 PageID #: 23

Fax: (202) 822-4997 cmehri@findjustice.com mlieder@findjustice.com zbest@findjustice.com Byron R. Perkins, Esq. Terrinell Lyons, Esq. Perkins-Law, LLC 2170 Highland Ave. South, Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 558-4696 Fax: (205) 558-4670 bperkins@perkins-law.com terrinelllyons@aol.com
24 Case 3:12-cv-00388 Document 1 Filed 04/18/12 Page 24 of 24 PageID #: 24

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

NATHANIEL CLAYBROOKS and

)

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, individually, on )

behalf of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, )

INC., WARNER HORIZON TELEVISION, )

INC., NEXT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., NZK )

PRODUCTIONS, INC., and

)

MICHAEL FLEISS,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-00388 Judge Aleta A. Trauger

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the court are several motions relating to the plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint and choice of venue. The defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended

Complaint (Docket No. 38) and an Alternative Motion to Strike Request for Injunctive Relief and

Class Allegations (Docket No. 45), to which the plaintiffs filed a consolidated Response in

opposition to both motions (Docket No. 84), and the defendants filed separate Replies thereto

(Docket Nos. 91 (Motion to Dismiss) and 93 (Motion to Strike)).1 The defendants have also filed

a Motion to Transfer Venue (Docket No. 59), which is not yet fully briefed and with respect to

1With respect to the Motion to Dismiss, the defendants also filed an accompanying Request for Judicial Notice of various materials outside the pleadings. (Docket No. 39.) After receiving briefing from the parties on the issue, the court declined to convert the Motion to Dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and, therefore, held that it would not consider the materials subject to the Request for Judicial Notice. (Docket No. 58.) The Request for Judicial Notice will be denied as moot.
1

which the parties have engaged in venue-specific discovery. (See Docket Nos. 86, 99, 100.)2 For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted, the remaining
motions will be denied as moot, and the plaintiffs’ claims will be dismissed with prejudice. BACKGROUND3
I. The Shows at Issue and the Plaintiffs’ Associated Discrimination Claims This case concerns the popular television shows The Bachelor and The Bachelorette (the
“Shows”), which collectively have aired since 2002 on the “ABC” channel. Defendant American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“ABC”) broadcasts these Shows, and the remaining defendants are companies and an individual otherwise involved in producing the Shows (collectively, “defendants”). The named plaintiffs, Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson, are two African-American males who unsuccessfully applied to be the “Bachelor” in 2011.
The Bachelor, which debuted in 2002 on ABC, is a popular “reality television” show in which approximately 25 women compete for the affections of a single man – the “Bachelor.” Each season of The Bachelor features a different Bachelor and a different pool of female suitors. In 2003, The Bachelorette debuted as a spin-off of The Bachelor. The Shows are essentially identical, except that the gender roles are reversed – i.e., in The Bachelorette, a pool of male suitors competes for the affections of the “Bachelorette.” In total, there have been 16 seasons of
2The defendants also filed a Request for Judicial Notice in support of the Motion to Transfer Venue. (Docket No. 61.)
3Unless otherwise noted, all allegations are drawn from the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 34.) Pursuant to the court’s previous Order (Docket No. 58), the court does not consider any additional factual materials filed by the defendants.
2

The Bachelor and 8 seasons of The Bachelorette.4 As a condition of participating on either Show, the Bachelor or Bachelorette signs a
casting contract with the defendants. The Bachelor/Bachelorette receives a stipend and enjoys various other benefits of participating on either Show, including fully paid housing, food, and travel expenses, as well the financial and professional benefits of celebrity status after his or her participation ends.
ABC’s website states that “there has been an eclectic mix of bachelors over the years. We’ve seen a doctor, football star, prince, millionaire, [and a] single dad.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 37 (brackets in original).) Despite this “eclectic mix,” none of the Bachelors or Bachelorettes has been a person of color – that is, across 24 combined seasons, all of the Bachelors and Bachelorettes have been white. Furthermore, the vast majority of “suitors” for the Bachelor and Bachelorette have been white, and the few non-white contestants tend to be eliminated early on in each show. Thus, the weekly Shows typically feature a white Bachelor/Bachelorette and all (or nearly all) white suitors.
The plaintiffs allege “[t]he shows’ complete lack of people of color is no accident.” (Id. ¶ 40.) They allege that, as a matter of internal policy, the defendants have intentionally cast only white Bachelors and Bachelorettes. According to a news article, the shows’ producers have feared “potential controversy stemming from an interracial romance,” (id. ¶ 44), which they believe would alienate the Shows’ predominantly white viewership. The plaintiffs allege that, for
4The plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges that the Eighth Season of The Bachelorette debuted on May 14, 2012. (Am. Compl. ¶ 32.) Therefore, the court will assume that there have been 24 combined seasons of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. The parties appear to agree that, as with all previous seasons, the Bachelorette in the Eighth Season of The Bachelorette was white.
3

this reason, the defendants have intentionally refused to cast non-white Bachelors and Bachelorettes, to avoid the possibility that a particular season could end with an interracial couple. Thus, “[b]y hiring only white applicants, Defendants are making the calculation that minorities in lead roles and interracial dating is unappealing to the shows’ audiences. The refusal to hire minority applicants is a conscious attempt to minimize the risk of alienating their majority-white viewership and the advertisers targeting that viewership.” (Id. ¶ 68.)
The plaintiffs allege that various television shows on other networks have, by contrast, “featured an abundant number of racial minorities.” (Id. ¶ 71.) Although ABC has also broadcasted shows involving minorities, those shows “involve platonic, as opposed to romantic, relationships among the cast members.” (Id. ¶ 75.) According to the plaintiffs, “[t]his indicates that the presence of people of color in ABC programming is acceptable so long as there is not exhibition of actual romance between non-whites or whites and people of color.” (Id. ¶ 75.)
The plaintiffs allege that The Bachelor and The Bachelorette “are examples of purposeful segregation in the media that perpetuates racial stereotypes and denies persons of color of opportunities in the entertainment industry.” (Id. ¶ 76.) According to the plaintiffs, “[s]tudies have shown that television is extremely influential in shaping the way people view one another and themselves.” (Id.) Accordingly, “[t]he exclusion of people of color from The Bachelor and The Bachelorette sends the message – to whites and racial minorities – that only all-white relationships are desirable and worthy of national attention.” (Id. at ¶ 77.) From the plaintiffs’ perspective, the defendants’ communication of this “message” has a deleterious effect on society:
With such a massive viewership, Defendants have the opportunity to help normalize minority and interracial relationships by showcasing them to mainstream America on The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. Instead, by discriminatorily refusing to cast people of color in the lead roles (as well as in the
4

role of suitor), Defendants play into the perceived racial fears of their audience and perpetuate outdated racial taboos. (Id. ¶ 78.) The plaintiffs allege that they and other minority applicants have been denied the equal opportunity to contract to be the Bachelor or the Bachelorette, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a statute that, among other things, prohibits discrimination in the formation of contracts.5 They seek to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all non-white applicants who met the shows’ baseline eligibility requirements. The plaintiffs seek nominal damages, punitive damages, and two forms of injunctive relief: (1) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from engaging in the alleged discriminatory practices; and (2) an injunction requiring the defendants to consider nonwhites as finalists for the role of the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. II. The Casting Process To cast the roles of the Bachelor and Bachelorette, the defendants solicit mail-in applications through their website and conduct casting calls in various locations across the country. Applicants must fill out a questionnaire and provide recent photographs and/or video of themselves. Applicants selected as semi-finalists are flown to Los Angeles for additional interviews and must submit additional paperwork. In 2011, plaintiff Johnson appeared for a casting call at a hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. In the hotel lobby, a white employee of the defendants stopped Johnson, took his materials, and promised to “pass them on” to the casting directors. Johnson observed that the white employee
5The plaintiffs’ original Complaint also included claims arising under California state law. (See Docket No. 1, Compl.) In the Amended Complaint, which is now the operative pleading in this case, the plaintiffs assert only the federal claim arising under § 1981.
5

did not stop any of the white Bachelor applicants who were entering the hotel for the casting call at the same time. Johnson never heard back from the Defendants about his application. In 2011, plaintiff Claybrooks appeared for a casting call at a different hotel. In the lobby, all of the other applicants appeared to be white. Although interview of these white applicants took about 45 minutes, Claybrooks’s interview lasted only 20 minutes, making him feel that he had been rushed through the interview process without being given the same opportunity as the white applicants. Like Johnson, Claybrooks never heard back from the defendants concerning his application. The defendants ultimately selected a white Bachelor for its 2012 season. III. The Defendants’ Arguments
In support of their Motion to Dismiss, the defendants argue that the case should be dismissed with prejudice on either of two grounds: (1) the First Amendment to the United States Constitution bars the plaintiffs’ claims; and/or (2) the “void-for-vagueness” doctrine bars the plaintiffs’ claims. The defendants also argue that, if the claims are not barred on either of those grounds, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient facts to establish a violation of § 1981.
In support of their Alternative Motion to Strike, the defendants argue that, if the court refuses to dismiss the case entirely, the court should at least find that (1) the proposed injunctions constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint and/or are impermissibly vague and superfluous; and/or (2) the plaintiffs’ class allegations have not been pleaded with sufficient particularity.
STANDARD OF REVIEW I. Motion to Dismiss Standard
In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
6

the court will “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007); Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2002). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a plaintiff provide “‘a short and plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The court must determine whether “the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims,” not whether the plaintiff can ultimately prove the facts alleged. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511, 122 S. Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2002) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974)).
The complaint’s allegations, however, “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). To establish the “facial plausibility” as required to “unlock the doors of discovery,” the plaintiff cannot rely on “legal conclusions” or “[threadbare] recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” but, instead, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). II. First Amendment as an Affirmative Defense
The plaintiffs suggest that, as a matter of law, it is premature for this court to address the defendants’ First Amendment defense at the pleading stage. (See Docket No. 84, Pltfs. Mem. at p. 5 (stating that the court should refrain from ruling on the validity of the claims “until after discovery and development of a full evidentiary record”).) However, “where the undisputed facts
7

conclusively establish an affirmative defense as a matter of law,” a motion to dismiss may be granted. Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 613 (6th Cir. 2009). This principle applies to First Amendment defenses at the pleading stage: when a plaintiff’s allegations establish that the First Amendment bars the plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law, federal courts may dismiss those claims. See Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 162-63 (6th Cir. 1983) (finding that dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1985(1) claims against certain defendants was appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), because, inter alia, defendants had “agreed to engage in constitutionally protected speech”); see also Eagles Nest Ranch & Acad. v. Bloom Twp. Bd. of Trs., No. 2:06-CV-242, 2007 WL 650485, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2007); Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Best v. Berard, 776 F. Supp. 2d 752, 753 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 491 F. Supp. 2d 962, 974 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
Consistent with this recognized approach, the court will analyze the plaintiffs’ allegations to determine whether they establish that the First Amendment bars their claims as a matter of law.
ANALYSIS I. Applicable Law
A. § 1981 and the First Amendment This case involves potential tension between two federal interests: the federal statutory interest in preventing racial discrimination in the formation of contracts, as embodied in 42 U.S.C § 1981, and the federal constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Section 1981 provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by
8

white citizens . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) (2012).6 Thus, the statute “prohibits intentional race discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts involving both public and private actors.” Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 440 F.3d 350, 358 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 173, 96 S. Ct. 2586, 49 L. Ed. 2d 415 (1976) (“§ 1981 . . . reaches private conduct.”) Here, at least for purposes of the defendants’ argument that the First Amendment trumps § 1981, the parties appear to agree that § 1981 applies to casting decisions for the Shows, because the casting decisions involve the formation and execution of contracts to become the Bachelor or Bachelorette.7
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that “[C]ongress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” The First Amendment shields protected speech and expression from private litigation, as well as from statutory restrictions and criminal penalties. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 277-78, 84 S. Ct. 710, 725, 376 U.S. 254, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 n.51, 102 S. Ct. 3409, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1215 (1982). The First Amendment protects a variety of artistic forms of expression, including entertainment, television programs, and dramatic works. Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65, 101 S. Ct. 2176, 68 L. Ed. 2d 671 (1981). Here, the parties agree that the Shows are expressive works that constitute speech protected by the First Amendment. However, they disagree as to whether the casting
6The statute defines “make and enforce contracts” to include the “making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b).
7The defendants do not appear to concede this point with respect to their “void for vagueness” argument. However, for the reasons stated herein, the court does not reach the void for vagueness argument in any case.
9

decisions behind those Shows are also protected by the First Amendment.
As explained herein, the court finds that casting decisions are part and parcel of the
creative process behind a television program – including the Shows at issue here – thereby
meriting First Amendment protection against the application of anti-discrimination statutes to that
process. Thus, as applied here, § 1981 would force the defendants to employ race-neutral criteria
in the casting process, thereby regulating the creative content of the Shows. Accordingly, as
applied in this specific context, § 1981 regulates speech based on its content – i.e., the race(s) of
the Shows’ respective cast members – which implicates strict scrutiny. See United States v.
Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813, 120 S. Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2000); see
also Netherland v. City of Zachary, La., 626 F. Supp. 2d 603, 607 (M.D. La. 2009) (applying
strict scrutiny analysis, where application of city-ordinance was content-based). Under that test,
the plaintiffs must show that applying § 1981 here would (1) advance a compelling government
interest; and (2) is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The parties only dispute the second element.8
B. The Intersection of § 1981 and the First Amendment Generally
8Notwithstanding the unique context of this case, the plaintiffs argue that the court should treat § 1981 as a content-neutral statute and apply the intermediate scrutiny test set forth in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S. Ct. 1673, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1968). Under O’Brien, a content-neutral statute that incidentally impacts speech survives a First Amendment challenge if (1) the statute is within the constitutional power of the government, (2) the statute furthers an important or substantial government interest, (3) the interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and (4) the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Id. at 377. Even if the court were to construe O’Brien as applicable to this case, the application of § 1981 plainly would, for the reasons expressed in detail herein, impose an undue and impermissible incidental restriction on the defendants’ First Amendment freedoms, thereby failing the fourth factor of the O’Brien test.
10

Although media organizations are subject to laws of general applicability,9 the Supreme Court has expressly found that the First Amendment can trump the application of antidiscrimination laws to protected speech. See Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 568, 115 S. Ct. 2338, 132 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1995). In Hurley, the Court considered “whether Massachusetts law could require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey.” Id. at 559. There, the Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (“GLIB”) sought to march in the annual Saint Patrick’s day parade in Boston, which was organized and conducted by the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council (“Council”), an unincorporated association of individuals from various South Boston veterans groups. Id. at 560. In an effort to express solidarity on behalf of Irish-American gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, GLIB sought to march in the parade, but the Council refused to permit them to participate.
At the time, a Massachusetts law of general applicability banned discrimination in public accommodations based on, inter alia, sexual orientation. Id. at 561. Accordingly, GLIB sued for the right to participate in the parade, arguing that the Massachusetts public accommodations law forbade the parade organizers from discriminating against GLIB, thereby requiring the Council to accommodate it. Id. The Massachusetts trial court – and, on appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court – found that “it was impossible to discern any specific expressive purpose entitling the Parade to protection under the First Amendment.” Id. at 564. Based on this finding, in
9See Associated Press v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 301 U.S. 103, 132-33, 57 S. Ct. 650, 81 L. Ed. 953 (1937); Leathers v. Matlock, 499 U.S. 439, 447, 111 S. Ct. 1438, 113 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1991); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 38384, 93 S. Ct. 2553, 37 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1973).
11

relevant part, the Massachusetts courts found that the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute
trumped any incidental affect on the parade organizer’s First Amendment free speech rights. Id.
On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed. The Court found that “parades are
a form of expression” entitled to First Amendment protection. Id. at 568. The Court squarely
rejected the view, adopted by the state courts below, that the Council was required to show that
the parade had a particular expressive purpose to justify First Amendment protection:
[A] narrow, succinctly articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection, which if confined to expressions conveying a “particularized message,” cf. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 411, 94 S. Ct. 2727, 2730, 41 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1974) (per curiam), would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll.
Hurley, 515 U.S. at 569-70.10
The Court then analyzed whether Massachusetts law could compel the Council to adjust
the creative content of its parade. With respect to the application of the public accommodations
law, the Court observed that this law “has been applied in a peculiar way” by the Massachusetts
10In reliance on Spence and certain decisions concerning the First Amendment right to freedom of association, the plaintiffs suggest that the defendants cannot establish a First Amendment defense without showing that the Shows embody a “particularized message.” (See Pltfs. Mem. at p. 7-12 (citing, inter alia, Hishon v. Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 78, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 81 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1984); Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 653, 120 S. Ct. 2446, 147 L. Ed. 2d 554 (2000); City of Dallis v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 25, 109 S. Ct. 1591, 104 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1989); and Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic Freedom & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 126 S. Ct. 1297, 164 L. Ed. 2d 156 (2006).) That is an incorrect statement of the law, which the Court expressly rejected in Hurley. Moreover, the court does not construe the defendants as asserting a defense based on the freedom of association, in any case. Thus, the court’s inquiry here does not turn on whether the plaintiffs’ allegations establish that the Shows convey or were intended to convey a “particularized message,” or whether the plaintiffs’ preferred message necessarily would be inconsistent therewith. Instead, the issue is whether applying § 1981 to the act of casting a television program would interfere with the defendants’ right to control the Shows’ expressive content – whatever that may be – which the plaintiffs concede is otherwise protected by the First Amendment.
12

lower courts. Id. at 572. “Since every participating unit affects the message conveyed by the
private organizers, the state courts’ application of the statute produced an order essentially
requiring petitioners to alter the expressive content of their parade.” Id. at 572-73 (emphasis
added). Thus, as here, the plaintiff sought to apply an anti-discrimination statute in a manner that
threatened to alter the content of the defendant’s expressive work, triggering an exacting analysis
by the Court.11
The Court observed that “a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own
message,” and that, “‘[s]ince all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to
leave unsaid, one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses
to speak may also decide what not to say.” Id. (quoting Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util.
Comm’n, 475 U.S. 1, 11, 16, 106 S. Ct. 903, 89 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986)).
Accordingly, the Court found that the parade organizers had a First Amendment right to
control the content of their own parade:
Rather like a composer, the Council selects the expressive units of the parade from potential participants, and though the score may not produce a particularized message, each contingent’s expression in the Council’s eyes comports with what merits celebration on that day. . . . [A] contingent marching behind the organization’s banner would at least bear witness to the fact that some Irish are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and the presence of the organized marchers would suggest their view that people of their sexual orientations have as much claim to
11In Hurley, the Court did not state whether it was analyzing the application of the state statute under a strict scrutiny analysis or under the O’Brien intermediate scrutiny analysis. However, the Court’s analysis suggests that it was undertaking a strict scrutiny approach to determine whether applying the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute amounted to a contentbased restriction on the parade organizer’s fundamental free speech rights in any respect. See, e.g., Hurley, 515 U.S. at 572 (“[T]his use of the state’s power violates the fundamental role of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.”) and 579 (construing application of the statute in the manner urged by the plaintiffs as “nothing less than a proposal to limit speech in the service of orthodox expression”).
13

unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals and indeed as members of parade units organized around other identifying characteristics. The parade’s organizers may not believe these facts about Irish sexuality to be so, or they may object to unqualified social acceptance of gays and lesbians or have some other reason for wishing to keep GLIB’s message out of the parade. But whatever the reason, it boils down to the choice of a speaker not to propound a particular point of view, and that choice is presumed to lie beyond the government’s power to control.
Id. at 574-75 (emphases added). Based on these findings, the Court held that the First
Amendment trumped the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute:
The very idea that a noncommercial speech restriction be used to produce thoughts and statements acceptable to some groups or, indeed, all people, grates on the First Amendment, for it amounts to nothing less than a proposal to limit speech in the service of orthodox expression. While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government.
Id. at 579 (internal citations omitted).
The factual circumstances in Hurley are not precisely analogous to those presented in this
case – the plaintiffs here are not an advocacy group, for example. Nevertheless, the Court in
Hurley articulated a general principle that governs the court’s analysis in this case: under
appropriate circumstances, anti-discrimination statutes of general applicability must yield to the
First Amendment. See also Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C.,
132 S. Ct. 694, 181 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2012) (holding that First Amendment Establishment and Free
Exercise Clauses barred application of employment discrimination statutes to religious
institution’s selection of its own ministers). As the plaintiffs concede, this principle applies
equally to § 1981 discrimination claims. (See Pltfs. Mem. at p. 11, n.1.) The plaintiffs also
concede that this principle applies to casting decisions for at least some types of television
programs, but not all. (Id.)
14

C. Absence of Precedent Applying First Amendment to Casting Decisions
Although the parties agree that the First Amendment protects the creative content of The
Bachelor and The Bachelorette, they vigorously disagree as to whether the First Amendment
protects the casting decisions for those programs. With respect to casting decisions for an
entertainment program of any kind, it appears that no federal court has addressed the relationship
between anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment. Thus, although the parties fault each
other for failing to identify any federal case law specifically addressing this issue,12 the court does
not interpret the absence of precedent on this issue as suggesting any particular result here.
Accordingly, the court must analyze this issue of first impression in light of relevant First
Amendment principles.
II. Application of First Amendment Principles to Casting Decisions
A. The Court Must Assume that the Defendants in Fact Discriminated in Casting The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.
In an introductory paragraph in their Memorandum in support of their Motion to Dismiss,
the defendants argue that, contrary to the Amended Complaint allegations, they “share the
12The only case cited by the parties that even remotely addresses the issue of casting is Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011), cited by the defendants. There, the California Court of Appeals addressed the application of a state antiSLAPP statute, which protected “any act of [the defendant] in furtherance of the person’s right of . . . free speech.” See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1) (2012) (emphasis added). Under this statute, which extends “broadly to reach conduct beyond the actual exercise of speech,” Greater LA Agency on Deafness v. CNN, Inc., No. C-11-03458 LB, 2012 WL 994647, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012), the Tamkin court found that the defendants’ writing and dissemination of a screenplay constituted acts in furtherance of “the creation, casting, and broadcasting of an episode of a popular television show.” Tamkin, 122 Cal. Rptr. at 271. Here, the court does not rely on Tamkin for several reasons: it is a state court decision, which is of limited persuasive weight in the first place; it concerns a state statute whose broad scope clouds the potential relevance of the Tamkin court’s First Amendment analysis with respect to casting; and its statement implying that casting constitutes free speech appears to be dicta, in any case.
15

Plaintiffs’ goals of reducing racial bias and prejudice and fostering diversity, tolerance and inclusion,” and “have never discriminated based on race in connection with the casting process” for the Shows. (Docket No. 42, Defs. Mem., at p. 1.) Notwithstanding these representations, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs, by suing the defendants under § 1981, essentially seek to coopt the Shows to showcase the plaintiffs’ own preferred message of racial acceptance. In response, the plaintiffs argue that, based on the defendants’ representations in their briefing that race is not a factor in casting the Shows, applying § 1981 necessarily would not actually alter the Shows’ expressive content.
Regardless of whether applying § 1981 would in fact alter the Shows’ content, the court must analyze whether the well-pleaded factual allegations in the Amended Complaint– not the defendants’ briefing representations about the real world accuracy of those representations – establishes a First Amendment defense. Thus, the court must assume, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, that the defendants did discriminate on the basis of race, that they did so to conform the content of their Shows to cater to the viewpoint of their target audience concerning interracial relationships, that the Shows’ content thereby perpetuates racial stereotypes about interracial relationships, and that the plaintiffs seek to alter/correct the defendants’ casting decision process to address that issue.13
B. Whether Casting Decisions are a Form of Conduct Devoid of Sufficient Creative Expression.
13Regardless, as discussed herein, the First Amendment protects the defendants’ ability to control the content of their own programs unilaterally. Thus, whether applying § 1981 here would actually enhance the Shows’ expressive content, contradict that content, or not affect it all is essentially beside the point, because the defendants – not the plaintiffs – are entitled to control the casting of their own programs in the manner in which they see fit.
16

Supreme Court precedent establishes that conduct constitutes protected speech if it is
“sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within [the First Amendment’s] scope.” Spence, 418 U.S. at 409-10.14 On the other hand, at some point, conduct ceases to be
materially communicative for First Amendment purposes. See Dallas, 490 U.S. at 25. Indeed,
“it is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes – for
example, walking down the street or meeting one’s friends at a shopping mall – but such a kernel
is not sufficient to bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment.” Id.
The plaintiffs’ position concerning whether casting decisions are protected by the First
Amendment appears to be internally inconsistent in at least one respect. Although the plaintiffs
appear to argue that casting decisions always involve conduct – the formation of a contract – that
is not materially communicative (see Pltfs. Mem. at pp. 7-9), they also concede that casting
decisions that “would undoubtedly affect [a] shows’ content” are entitled to First Amendment
protection (id. at p. 11, n.1). Thus, the court construes the plaintiffs as arguing that § 1981
applies to casting decisions in some contexts, but not others, apparently based on a court’s
assessment of whether enforcing § 1981 would actually affect the particular show’s message.
The defendants convincingly argue that applying anti-discrimination laws to casting
decisions in this manner would threaten the content of various television programs and television
14For example, burning an American flag, wearing a jacket imprinted with “Fuck the Draft” during the Vietnam war era, wearing black armbands to show objection to the Vietnam war, hanging an American flag upside down with a peace sign, and forming a parade to celebrate Irish heritage all are forms of conduct with a sufficiently communicative element to constitute speech protected by the First Amendment. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989) (flag burning); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 18, 91 S. Ct. 1780, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1971) (imprinted jacket); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist, 393 U.S. 503, 504, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969) (armbands); Spence, 418 U.S. at 41415 (upside down flag); Hurley, 515 U.S. at 568 (Irish heritage parade).
17

networks. For example, the legality of any network targeting particular demographic groups would be called into question, including, inter alia, the Lifetime Network (targeted to female audiences), the Black Entertainment Channel (targeted to African-Americans), Telemundo (targeted to Latinos), the Jewish Channel, the Christian Broadcast Channel, the Inspiration Network (targeted to Protestants), and LOGO (targeted to gays and lesbians). (See Defs. Mem. at p. 11.) Similarly, the content of any television show that does not have a sufficiently diverse cast would be or would have been subject to court scrutiny, such as The Jersey Shore (all white cast members), The Shahs of Beverly Hills (a show about Persian-Americans living in Los Angeles), The Cosby Show (a show with an African-American cast), and The Steve Harvey Show (a show with an African-American lead actor and supporting cast). (See Defs. Mem. at p. 12.) To the extent that these networks and programs discriminated and discriminate in their casting choices, would they not be subject to civil liability under prevailing state and/or federal antidiscrimination statutes, but for the First Amendment? There are other examples: Would applying anti-discrimination laws require a playwright to consider white actors to play Othello, black actors to play Macbeth, or a male to play Lady Macbeth? For that matter, could a dramatist face civil liability for staging an all-female version of Romeo & Juliet?
In response, the plaintiffs argue that the court should treat The Bachelor and The Bachelorette differently from “identity-themed programming that would be incidentally affected by compliance with anti-discrimination laws,” such as networks that are “specifically geared” toward particular demographic groups, like LOGO, BET, Telemundo, and The Jewish Channel, or shows that are “about” African-Americans, like The Cosby Show. (Pltfs. Resp. at p. 11 n.1 (emphasis added).) The plaintiffs cite to no legal authority for this purported distinction between
18

“identity-themed programming” and other forms of television programming.
The plaintiffs’ proposed test is inherently unwieldy, threatens to chill otherwise protected
speech, and, if implemented, would embroil courts in questioning the creative process behind any
television program or other dramatic work. How would a court determine the point at which a
television program, movie, or play is sufficiently “identity-themed”, “specifically geared” to, or
“about” a particular racial, religious, or gender group to construe the demographics of its cast as
to constitute the show’s “content”? How would one even define what the creative “content” of a
program is? These are intractable issues that, in light of the First Amendment, are plainly beyond
the appropriate scope of a court to address. Indeed, as the Court pointed out in Hurley, an
expressive work need not have any particularized message to justify First Amendment protection,
see 515 U.S. at 569-70, and, of course, expressive works can mean different things to different
people.15
Moreover, as the defendants persuasively argue, casting decisions are a necessary
15The prospect of courts sitting in judgment as to whether a television show or network is sufficiently “identity-themed” to warrant First Amendment protections – compared to shows or networks whose content is not sufficiently “about” a particular protected group (whatever that means) – smacks of censorship and prior restraint on creative expression, which would be entirely impermissible under the First Amendment. See Metro. Opera Ass’n, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int’l Union, 239 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559, 96 S. Ct. 2791, 49 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976)). Indeed, the prospect of courts issuing injunctions directed to the creative process behind entertainment programs is particularly troubling. Id. at 176 (“[W]hen a prior restraint takes the form of a courtissued injunction, the risk of infringing on speech protected under the First Amendment increases[,]” because “[i]njunctions . . . carry greater risks of censorship and discriminatory application than do general ordinances.”) (citing Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753, 764, 114 S. Ct. 2516, 129 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1994)); see also Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 224-25 (6th Cir. 1996) (“It has long been established that a prior restraint comes to a court ‘with a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’”) (quoting Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S. Ct. 631, 639, 9 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1963)).
19

component of any entertainment show’s creative content. The producers of a television program, a movie, or a play could not effectuate their creative vision, as embodied in the end product marketed to the public, without signing cast members. The plaintiffs seek to drive an artificial wedge between casting decisions and the end product, which itself is indisputably protected as speech by the First Amendment. Thus, regulating the casting process necessarily regulates the end product. In this respect, casting and the resulting work of entertainment are inseparable and must both be protected to ensure that the producers’ freedom of speech is not abridged.
At any rate, the plaintiffs’ argument essentially ignores a key thrust of their own Amended Complaint, which explicitly takes issue with and seeks to alter the messaging of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. The Amended Complaint allegations build to the plaintiffs’ fundamental disagreement with the expressive content of the Shows: they fault the Shows for “perpetuat[ing] racial stereotypes,” because “television is extremely influential in shaping the way people view one another and themselves.” (emphasis added.) They specifically allege that “the exclusion of people of color from The Bachelor and The Bachelorette sends the message – to whites and racial minorities – that only all-white relationships are desirable and worthy of national attention” (emphasis added); and they even allege that, instead of seeking “to help normalize minority and interracial relationships by showcasing them to mainstream America,” the defendants’ casting decisions “play into the perceived racial fears of their audience and perpetuate racial taboos.” Indeed, the plaintiffs contrast The Bachelor and The Bachelorette with other television shows that they believe are appropriately inclusive of racial minorities.
Thus, taking the allegations as true, the plaintiffs have plainly alleged that (1) the racial composition of the Shows conveys an influential message to the viewing public regarding
20

interracial romantic relationships; (2) the defendants consciously made casting decisions to control a message that the Shows convey; (3) the plaintiffs strongly disagree with that message, which they believe is “outdated”, “perpetuates racial stereotypes,” and caters (or at least is designed to cater) to the allegedly misguided prejudices of the Shows’ audience members; and (4) the plaintiffs seek to alter that message to “showcase” their own more progressive message through the application of § 1981. Accordingly, even as alleged by the plaintiffs, the Shows’ casting decisions are part and parcel of the Shows’ creative content, which the plaintiffs seek to reform. That is plainly an attempt to regulate the content of the Shows, which the First Amendment forbids.
Ultimately, whatever messages The Bachelor and The Bachelorette communicate or are intended to communicate – whether explicitly, implicitly, intentionally, or otherwise – the First Amendment protects the right of the producers of these Shows to craft and control those messages, based on whatever considerations the producers wish to take into account. See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 573 (“A speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.”); see also McDermott v. Ampersand Publ’g, LLC, 593 F.3d 950, 962 (9th Cir. 2010) (approving district court’s refusal to grant injunction reinstating newspaper’s discharged editorial staff members and reporters, because, “telling the newspaper that it must hire specified . . . editors and reporters . . . is bound to affect what gets published. To the extent the publisher’s choice of writers affects the expressive content of its newspaper, the First Amendment protects that choice.”) (emphasis added). Similarly, “rather like a composer,” the defendants are entitled to select the elements (here, cast members) that support whatever expressive message the Shows convey or are intended to convey. See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 574. Thus, whether enforcing § 1981
21

here would frustrate, enhance, or be entirely consistent with the message that The Bachelor and

The Bachelorette conveys, the First Amendment protects the producers’ right unilaterally to

control their own creative content.

The plaintiffs’ goals here are laudable: they seek to support the social acceptance of

interracial relationships, to eradicate outdated racial taboos, and to encourage television networks

not to perpetuate outdated racial stereotypes. Nevertheless, the First Amendment prevents the

plaintiffs from effectuating these goals by forcing the defendants to employ race-neutral criteria

in their casting decisions in order to “showcase” a more progressive message.

III. Disposition of the Various Pending Motions

For the reasons stated herein, the court has found that the First Amendment bars the

plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the court need not reach the defendants’ additional arguments

that (1) § 1981 is void for vagueness as applied here, and/or (2) the plaintiffs have failed to plead

their claims with adequate particularity. Similarly, the plaintiffs’ Alternative Motion to Strike,

the Motion to Transfer Venue, and the Request for Judicial Notice relative to the Motion to

Transfer Venue are now rendered moot.16

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the court finds as follows:

•

The Motion to Dismiss will be granted and this case will be dismissed with

16The plaintiffs’ lone claim under § 1981 implicates federal law – largely United States Supreme Court precedent – that applies equally in the proposed transferee court (the federal district court for the Central District of California). Likely for this reason, the thrust of the defendants’ argument in favor of transfer related to the convenience of the parties and witnesses, considerations that are not affected by the court’s disposition of this matter at the pleadings stage. Indeed, neither party raised any objection to this court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss before considering the Motion to Transfer Venue.
22

prejudice;

•

The Motion for Judicial Notice concerning the Motion to Dismiss will be

denied;

•

The Alternative Motion to Strike will be denied as moot;

•

The Motion to Transfer Venue and associated Request for Judicial Notice

will be denied as moot.

An appropriate order will enter.

_____________________________ ALETA A. TRAUGER United States District Judge

23

 
 CASE−CLOSED,MANUAL−FILING
U.S. District Court Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12−cv−00388

Claybrooks et al v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. et al Date Filed: 04/18/2012

Assigned to: District Judge Aleta A. Trauger

Date Terminated: 10/15/2012

Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

Nathaniel Claybrooks

represented by Byron R. Perkins Perkins−Law, LLC 2170 Highland Avenue, S Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35205 (205) 558−4696 Fax: (205) 558−4670 Email: bperkins@perkins−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cyrus Mehri Mehri &Skalet PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822−5100 Fax: (202) 822−4997 Email: cmehri@findjustice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Lieder Mehri &Skalet PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822−5100 Fax: (202) 822−4997 Email: mlieder@findjustice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott P. Tift Barrett Johnston Martin &Garrison, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 244−2202 Fax: (615) 252−3798 Email: stift@barrettjohnston.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terrinell Lyons Perkins−Law, LLC 2170 Highland Avenue, S Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35205 (205) 558−4696 Fax: (205) 558−4670 Email: terrinelllyons@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 1 of 15

Plaintiff
Christopher Johnson individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated

Zachary W. Best Mehri &Skalet PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822−5100 Fax: (202) 822−4997 Email: zbest@findjustice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Byron R. Perkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cyrus Mehri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P. Lieder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott P. Tift (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terrinell Lyons (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachary W. Best (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

represented by Adam Levin Mitchell, Silberberg &Knupp, LLP Trident Center 11377 W Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 312−2000 Fax: (310) 312−3100 Email: axl@msk.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Junaid A. Odubeko Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (Nashville Office) 1600 Division Street Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203−0025 (615) 252−4635 Fax: (615) 252−6380 Email: jodubeko@babc.com TERMINATED: 07/24/2012

Kenneth M. Bryant Burr &Forman, LLP (Nashville Office) 511 Union Street Suite 2300
Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 2 of 15

Defendant Warner Horizon Television, Inc.

Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 724−3240 Fax: (615) 724−3340 Email: kbryant@burr.com TERMINATED: 08/10/2012
Ryan A. Kurtz Miller &Martin PLLC (Atlanta Office) 1180 W Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30309−3407 (404) 962−6458 Fax: (404) 962−6300 Email: rkurtz@millermartin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah C. Maxwell Miller &Martin PLLC (Nashville Office) 401 Commerce Street Suite 720 Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 744−8453 Fax: (615) 744−8633 Email: Sarah.Maxwell@bakermckenzie.com (Inactive) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012
Seth E. Pierce Mitchell, Silberberg &Knupp, LLP Trident Center 11377 W Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 312−2000 Fax: (310) 312−3100 Email: sep@msk.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelby R. Grubbs Miller &Martin PLLC (Chattanooga Office) Volunteer Building 832 Georgia Avenue Suite 1200 Chattanooga, TN 37402 (423) 756−6600 Email: sgrubbs@millermartin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley Butler Snow LLP (Nashville) The Pinnacle at Symphony Place 150 Third Avenue South Suite 1600 Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 503−9115 Fax: (615) 503−9101 Email: harold.pinkley@butlersnow.com TERMINATED: 08/10/2012
represented by Adam Levin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 3 of 15

Junaid A. Odubeko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012

Kenneth M. Bryant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2012

Ryan A. Kurtz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah C. Maxwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012

Seth E. Pierce (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelby R. Grubbs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2012

Defendant Next Entertainment, Inc.

represented by Adam Levin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Junaid A. Odubeko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012

Kenneth M. Bryant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2012

Ryan A. Kurtz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah C. Maxwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012

Seth E. Pierce (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelby R. Grubbs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2012

Defendant

NZK Productions, Inc.

represented by Adam Levin

(See above for address)

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 4 of 15

Defendant Michael Fleiss

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Junaid A. Odubeko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012
Kenneth M. Bryant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2012
Ryan A. Kurtz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah C. Maxwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012
Seth E. Pierce (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelby R. Grubbs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2012
represented by Adam Levin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Junaid A. Odubeko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012
Kenneth M. Bryant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2012
Ryan A. Kurtz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah C. Maxwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012
Seth E. Pierce (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelby R. Grubbs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2012

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 5 of 15

Date Filed

# Docket Text

04/18/2012

1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES filed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks. (Filing fee $ 350) Summons issued. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(af) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/18/2012: # 2 Summons) (rd). (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012

Bar status for attys George Edward Barrett of TN, Byron R. Perkins &Terrinell Lyons of AL, and Cyrus Mehri, Michael P. Lieder &Zachary W. Best of DC verified as active this date. (rd) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Byron R. Perkins and Terrinell Lyons of Perkins−Law, LLC, Birmingham, AL: WITHIN 20 DAYS (on or before 5/8/12), counsel shall file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, a Certificate of Good Standing signed by the Clerk of a United States District Court where admitted, and pay a fee of $75.00 (LR 83.01(d)) (rd) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Cyrus Mehri, Michael P. Lieder, and Zachary W. Best of Mehri &Skalet PLLC, Washington, DC: WITHIN 20 DAYS (on or before 5/8/12), counsel shall file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, a Certificate of Good Standing signed by the Clerk of a United States District Court where admitted, and pay a fee of $75.00 (LR 83.01(d)) (rd) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012

2 NOTICE from USDC Clerk regarding Corporate Disclosure Statement requirement. (rd) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012

3 NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference set for 3:30 p.m. on Monday, 6/18/12 in Chambers 825 before District Judge Aleta A. Trauger. (rd) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/19/2012

4 MOTION for attorney(s) Byron R. Perkins and Terrinell Lyons−Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee not paid−due within 20 days) by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/19/2012

5 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Byron R. Perkins from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/19/2012

6 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Terrinell Lyons−Edwards from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/23/2012

7 RECEIPT #34675021323 in the amount of $150.00 posted by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson re 4 Motion for Attys Byron R. Perkins and Terrinell Lyons−Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (rd) (Entered: 04/23/2012)

04/25/2012

8 ORDER: Pltf's 4 Motion for Attys Byron R. Perkins and Terrinell Lyons−Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/25/12. (rd) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/27/2012

9 SUMMONS returned executed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks. NZK Productions, Inc. served on 4/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Cert. Mail Return Receipt− NZK Productions, Inc.)(Barrett, George) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012

10 SUMMONS returned executed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks. Warner Horizon Television, Inc. served on 4/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Cert. Mail Return Receipt− Warner Horizon Television, Inc.)(Barrett, George) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/30/2012

11 SUMMONS returned executed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks. Michael Fleiss served on 4/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Cert. U.S. Mail Return Receipt− Michael Fleiss)(Barrett, George) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012

12 SUMMONS returned executed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks. Next Entertainment, Inc. served on 4/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Cert. U.S. Mail Return Receipt− NEXT Entertainment, Inc.)(Barrett, George) (Entered:

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 6 of 15

04/30/2012)

05/07/2012

13 SUMMONS returned executed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. served on 5/7/2012. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/07/2012

14 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott P. Tift on behalf of Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson (Tift, Scott) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/07/2012

15 MOTION for attorney(s) Cyrus Mehri, Michael P. Lieder and Zachary W. Best to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $225 PHV fee; receipt number 0650−1289062) by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/07/2012

16 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Cyrus Mehri from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/07/2012

17 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Michael Lieder from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/07/2012

18 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Zachary Best from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/07/2012

19 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah C. Maxwell on behalf of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Maxwell, Sarah) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/08/2012

Bar status for attys Sarah Maxwell, Junaid Odubeko, and T. Harold Pinkley of TN verified as active this date. (rd) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

20 ORDER: Pltfs' 15 Motion for Attys Cyrus Mehri, Michael P. Lieder, and Zachary W. Best to Appear Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/8/12. (rd) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

21 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Maxwell, Sarah) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/09/2012

22 ORDER: Defts' 21 Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines to Respond is GRANTED. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., and Warner Horizon Television, Inc. shall have through 6/14/12 to respond to Complaint. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/9/12. (rd) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

05/10/2012

23 MOTION for attorney(s) Adam Levin to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee not paid−due within 20 days) by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Pinkley, T.) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

24 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Adam Levin from the United States District Court for the Central District of California filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Pinkley, T.) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

25 MOTION for attorney(s) Seth E. Pierce to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee not paid−due within 20 days) by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Pinkley, T.) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

26 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Seth E. Pierce from the United States District Court for the Central District of California filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Pinkley, T.) (Entered:

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 7 of 15

05/11/2012 05/11/2012 05/14/2012 05/14/2012 06/01/2012
06/01/2012 06/04/2012
06/13/2012 06/14/2012 06/14/2012 06/26/2012 06/28/2012
06/28/2012
06/28/2012

05/10/2012)
Bar status for attys Adam Levin and Seth E. Pierce of CA verified as active this date. (rd) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
27 RECEIPT #34675021629 in the amount of $75.00 posted by defts re 23 Motion for atty Adam Levin to Appear Pro Hac Vice. RECEIPT #34675021630 in the amount of $75.00 posted by defts re 25 Motion for atty Seth E. Pierce to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (rd) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
28 ORDER: Pltfs' 23 Motion for Atty Adam Levin to Appear Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/14/12. (rd) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
29 ORDER: Pltfs' 25 Motion for Atty Seth E. Pierce to Appear Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/14/12. (rd) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
30 Joint MOTION to Continue Case Management Conference and to Postpone Deadline to File Class Certification Motion by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Tift, Scott) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
31 APPENDIX filed by All Parties re 30 Motion to Continue,. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Case law)(Tift, Scott) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
32 ORDER: The parties' 30 Joint Motion Requesting a Continuance of the Case Management Conference and to Postpone Deadline to File Class Certification Motion is GRANTED. The deadline for the filing of the class certification motion is STAYED, pending further order of the court. The ICMC is CONTINUED, to be reset at a later time. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/4/12. (rd) Modified on 6/4/2012 (rd). (Entered: 06/04/2012)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth M. Bryant on behalf of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Bryant, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
34 AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES against All Defendants, filed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks.(Barrett, George) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
Bar status for atty Kenneth M. Bryant of TN verified as active this date. (rd) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
35 NOTICE of Appearance by Shelby R. Grubbs on behalf of All Defendants (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
36 MOTION for Leave to file Physical Evidence (Digital Video Disc, or DVD in support of certain motion papers and a Request For Judicial Notice) (UNOPPOSED) by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Exhibit 1 to Motion for Leave to File Physical Evidence (Digital Video Disc, or DVD)(Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
37 MEMORANDUM in Support of 36 MOTION for Leave to file Physical Evidence (Digital Video Disc, or DVD in support of certain motion papers and a Request For Judicial Notice) (UNOPPOSED) MOTION for Leave to file Physical Evidence (Digital Video Disc, or DVD in support of certain motion papers and a Request For Judicial Notice) (UNOPPOSED) filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
38 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/28/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 8 of 15

06/28/2012
06/28/2012 06/28/2012
06/28/2012 06/28/2012 06/28/2012 06/28/2012 06/28/2012
06/28/2012 06/28/2012 06/29/2012 06/29/2012 06/29/2012 06/29/2012

39 REQUEST for Judicial Notice in Support of 38 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint and 45 Alternative Motion to Strike Request for Injunctive Relief and Class Allegations, by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−5I, # 2 Exhibits 5J−6)(Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/2/2012 (rd). (Entered: 06/28/2012)
40 APPENDIX filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 39 Request for Judicial Notice. (Attachment: # 1 Case law)(Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/2/2012 (rd). (Entered: 06/28/2012)
41 DECLARATION of Andrew S. Fleischer filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 39 REQUEST for Judicial Notice re 38 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/2/2012 (rd). (Entered: 06/28/2012)
42 MEMORANDUM in Support of 38 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
43 APPENDIX filed by All Defendants re 42 Memorandum in Support, 38 Motion to Dismiss. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
44 APPENDIX filed by All Defendants re 42 Memorandum in Support, 38 Motion to Dismiss, 43 Appendix. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
45 ALTERNATIVE MOTION to Strike 34 Request for Injunctive Relief and Class Allegations, by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/2/2012 (rd). (Entered: 06/28/2012)
46 NOTICE of Filing by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 45 MOTION to Strike 34 Amended Complaint Class Allegations and Prayer for Injunctive Relief MOTION to Strike 34 Amended Complaint Class Allegations and Prayer for Injunctive Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint with Allegations Stricken)(Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
47 MEMORANDUM in Support of 45 ALTERNATIVE MOTION to Strike, filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/2/2012 (rd). (Entered: 06/28/2012)
48 APPENDIX filed by All Defendants re 47 Memorandum in Support, 45 Motion to Strike,. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Case law)(Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
49 ORDER granting 36 Motion for Leave to to file Physical Evidence. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/29/12. (dt) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
50 ORDER: Defendants are given leave to file a DVD and that the Clerks office will accept that filing. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/29/12. (dt) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
51 ORDER: By 7/6/2012, the parties shall file a position statement, indicating whether or not they believe this 38 Motion to Dismiss should be converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 12(d), FED. R. CIV. P. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/29/12. (dt) Modified on 7/2/2012 (rd). (Entered: 06/29/2012)
52 NOTICE of Filing by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 50 Order Defendants' Notice of Filing Physical Evidence (DVDs) (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 06/29/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 9 of 15

06/29/2012 07/03/2012 07/05/2012 07/06/2012 07/06/2012 07/06/2012 07/09/2012
07/20/2012 07/20/2012 07/20/2012 07/20/2012 07/20/2012 07/20/2012 07/20/2012

NOTICE of Manual Filing by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 50 Order. DVDs received in Clerk's Office this date and forwarded to chambers. (rd) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
53 MOTION to Stay Response Deadlines to Pending Motions re 51 Order, by Nathaniel Claybrooks. Christopher Johnson. (Tift, Scott) Modified on 7/5/2012 (rd). (Entered: 07/03/2012)
54 ORDER: Pltfs' 53 Motion to Stay Response Deadlines Pending the Court's Determination of Whether Defts' Motion to Dismiss Shall Proceed as a Summary Judgment Motions is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/5/12. (rd) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
55 Position Statement Regarding Rule 12(d) Conversion filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 51 Order. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/9/2012 (rd). (Entered: 07/06/2012)
56 APPENDIX of Cases Cited in 55 Position Statement Regarding Rule 12(d) Conversion, filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/9/2012 (rd). (Entered: 07/06/2012)
57 Position Statement on Converting Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson re 51 Order. (Attachment: # 1 Attachment Unpublished cases)(Tift, Scott) Modified on 7/9/2012 (rd). (Entered: 07/06/2012)
58 ORDER: The court declines to convert the pending Motion to Dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Pltfs shall respond to the 38 Motion to Dismiss and 45 Alternative Motion to Strike Request for Injunctive Relief and Class Allegations by 7/27/12. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/9/12. (rd) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
60 MEMORANDUM in Support of 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
61 REQUEST for Judicial Notice with attached Exhibit 1 re 59 MOTION to Transfer to C.D. of California by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/23/2012 (rd). (Entered: 07/20/2012)
62 APPENDIX filed by All Defendants re 59 Motion to Change Venue. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Case Law)(Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
63 DECLARATION of Michael Fleiss filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
64 DECLARATION of Martin Hilton filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
65 DECLARATION of Brooke Karzen filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 10 of 15

07/20/2012

66 DECLARATION of Robyn Kass filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

67 DECLARATION of Lacey Pemberton filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

68 DECLARATION of Seth Pierce filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

69 DECLARATION of John Saade filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

70 DECLARATION of Roz Taylor−Jordan filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re: 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/23/2012

Notice to filer Shelby Grubbs re 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 : Pursuant to Local Rule 5.01, all things filed with the Court that are required to be served upon a party shall include a certificate of service identifying by name the person served, what was served, method of service and date of service. Please FILE a Certificate of Service for these documents. (rd) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

71 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Appendix filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re Docket Annotation, 62 Appendix filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

72 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Fleiss Declaration filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re Docket Annotation, 63 Declaration, filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

73 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Hilton Declaration filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re Docket Annotation, 64 Declaration, filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

74 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Karzen Declaration filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 65 Declaration, filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

75 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Kass Declaration filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 66 Declaration, filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

76 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Pemberton Declaration filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 11 of 15

Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 67 Declaration, filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

77 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Pierce Declaration filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 68 Declaration, filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

78 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Saade Declaration filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 69 Declaration, filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/23/2012

79 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service − Taylor−Jordan Declaration filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 70 Declaration, filed by Next Entertainment, Inc., NZK Productions, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc., Michael Fleiss, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. (Grubbs, Shelby) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/24/2012

80 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File Consolidated Response to Defendants' Motions by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Tift, Scott) Modified on 7/25/2012 (rd). (Entered: 07/24/2012)

07/24/2012

81 JOINT MOTION Requesting Extension and Leave to File Reply Briefs re 45 MOTION to Strike, 38 MOTION to Dismiss by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 7/25/2012 (rd). (Entered: 07/24/2012)

07/25/2012

82 ORDER: Pltfs' 80 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Response to Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/25/12. (rd) (Entered: 07/25/2012)

07/25/2012

83 ORDER: The parties' 81 Joint Motion Requesting Extension and Leave to File Reply Briefs is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/25/12. (rd) (Entered: 07/25/2012)

07/27/2012

84 MEMORANDUM of Law in Opposition to 35 Motion to Dismiss and 45 Alternative Motion to Strike filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Attachment: # 1 Attachment Unpublished caselaw)(Barrett, George) Modified on 7/30/2012 (rd). (Entered: 07/27/2012)

08/02/2012

85 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California and to Set Discovery Schedule by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion)(Tift, Scott) (Entered: 08/02/2012)

08/03/2012

86 ORDER granting 85 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 59 MOTION to Change Venue Transfer to C.D. of California. Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue is hereby indefinitely continued. (SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DEADLINES). Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/3/12. (dt) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/09/2012

87 NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan A. Kurtz on behalf of All Defendants (Kurtz, Ryan) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/09/2012

88 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (unopposed) by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, correspondence # 2

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 12 of 15

Exhibit B, correspondence # 3 Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants)(Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 8/10/2012 (rd). (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/10/2012

Bar status for atty Ryan A. Kurtz of GA verified as active this date. (rd) (Entered: 08/10/2012)

08/10/2012

89 ORDER: Defts' 88 Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is GRANTED. Attys Kenneth M. Bryant, T. Harold Pinkley, Junaid C. Odubeko, Lynda Hill, and Sarah C. Maxwell terminated. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/10/12. (rd) (Entered: 08/10/2012)

08/16/2012

90 Joint MOTION Set Deadlines Related to Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Tift, Scott) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

08/17/2012

91 REPLY Memorandum in Support of 38 MOTION to Dismiss filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 8/20/2012 (rd). (Entered: 08/17/2012)

08/17/2012

92 APPENDIX filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 91 Reply Memorandum. (Attachment: # 1 Attachment Case Law)(Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 8/20/2012 (rd). (Entered: 08/17/2012)

08/17/2012

93 REPLY Memorandum of Law in Support of 45 Alternative Motion to Strike Alternative Motion to Strike Request for Injunctive Relief and Class Allegations filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 8/20/2012 (rd). (Entered: 08/17/2012)

08/17/2012

94 APPENDIX filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 93 Reply Memornandum. (Attachment: # 1 Attachment −Case Law)(Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 8/20/2012 (rd). (Entered: 08/17/2012)

08/20/2012

95 ORDER: The parties' 90 Joint Motion to Set Deadlines Related to Defts' Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/20/12. (rd) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

09/10/2012

96 NOTICE of Filing by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. Extension of Transfer Motion Deadlines (Tift, Scott) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

09/14/2012

97 NOTICE of Filing by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. Agreed Extension of Deadlines (Tift, Scott) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/19/2012

98 NOTICE of Filing by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. Extend Deadlines Concerning Motion to Transfer Venue (Tift, Scott) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/20/2012

99 JOINT MOTION to Set Briefing Schedule re 59 MOTION to Transfer Venue to the Central District of California by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Tift, Scott) Modified on 9/21/2012 (rd). (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/24/2012

100 ORDER: The parties' 99 Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule is GRANTED. Pltfs shall respond to defts' 59 Motion to Transfer Venue to the Central District of California by 10/23/12; defts may file a reply by 11/2/12. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/24/12. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 13 of 15

10/15/2012 10/15/2012
10/15/2012 11/11/2012 11/11/2012 11/11/2012 11/11/2012 11/13/2012 11/13/2012 11/14/2012 11/19/2012 11/20/2012

ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
101 MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/15/12. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
102 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, defts' 38 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the associated 39 Motion for Judicial Notice is DENIED AS MOOT; defts' 45 Alternative Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT; defts' 59 Motion to Transfer Venue and associated 61 Motion for Judicial Notice are DENIED AS MOOT; pltfs' claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Entry of this order shall constitute the judgment in this case. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/15/12. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
103 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT re 101 Memorandum of the Court, 102 Order. (rd) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
104 MOTION to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Barrett, George) (Entered: 11/11/2012)
105 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(a) by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Barrett, George) (Entered: 11/11/2012)
106 MEMORANDUM in Support of 105 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(a), 104 MOTION to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Unpublished Case)(Barrett, George) (Entered: 11/11/2012)
107 DECLARATION of Cyrus Mehri filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson re: 105 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(a), 104 MOTION to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e). (Barrett, George) (Entered: 11/11/2012)
Notice to filer George Barrett re 106 : Pursuant to Local Rule 5.01, all things filed with the Court that are required to be served upon a party shall include a certificate of service. Certificates of Service shall identify by name the person served, what was served, the method of service, and date of service. Please FILE a conformed Certificate of Service for this document. (rd) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
108 CERTIFICATE of Service for Docket Entry Number 106 filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson re 106 Memorandum in Support, filed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks. (Barrett, George) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
109 ORDER: Defts' shall respond to 104 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgement, and 105 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by 11/30/12. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/13/12. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
110 JOINT MOTION to Set Briefing Schedule re 104 , 105 , 109 by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Nathaniel Claybrooks, Michael Fleiss, Christopher Johnson, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Tift, Scott) Modified on 11/20/2012 (rd). (Entered: 11/19/2012)
111 NOTICE of Filing by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson re 105 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(a) Substitute Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A − Photographs of Bachelors and Bachelorettes, # 3 Exhibit B − Filed EEOC Charges, # 4 Exhibit C − EEOC Notices of Right−to−Sue)(Barrett, George) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 14 of 15

11/20/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/21/2012 04/09/2013 04/09/2013

112 ORDER: The parties' 110 Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule re 104 , 105 is GRANTED as requested. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/20/12. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
113 Combined Opposition to 104 MOTION to Amend/Alter Judgment and 105 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. (Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 12/11/2012 (rd). (Entered: 12/10/2012)
114 APPENDIX filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Michael Fleiss, NZK Productions, Inc., Next Entertainment, Inc., Warner Horizon Television, Inc. re 113 Opposition to Motions. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit Case Law)(Grubbs, Shelby) Modified on 12/11/2012 (rd). (Entered: 12/10/2012)
115 REPLY filed by Nathaniel Claybrooks, Christopher Johnson to Combined Opposition to 104 Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and 105 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, filed by Christopher Johnson, Nathaniel Claybrooks. (Attachment: # 1 Attachment Unpublished Cases)(Tift, Scott) Modified on 12/26/2012 (rd). (Entered: 12/21/2012)
116 MEMORANDUM. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/9/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
117 ORDER: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, the plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to Rule 59 to Alter or Amend the Judgment 104 and the plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to Rule 15(a) for Leave to File Attached Second Amended Complaint 105 are hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/9/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY−ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) (Entered: 04/09/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-388 As of: 02/21/2016 08:33 PM CST 15 of 15