Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GLENDORA v. DOLAN

May 5, 1994

GLENDORA, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES F. DOLAN, JOHN TATTA, WILLIAM J. BELL, WILLIAM J. QUINN, MARC A. LUSTGARTEN, JOSEPH AZZNARA, JAMES L. DOLAN, CHARLES FORMA, ROBERT S. LEMLE, IRVIN B. POLINSKY, THOMAS GARGER, and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VINCENT L. BRODERICK

 VINCENT L. BRODERICK, U.S.D.J.

 I

 This case grows out of the tension between the desire of Congress to make cable television a soapbox for diverse views and the risks created by any imposition of governmental control upon private entities involved in distributing cable materials to cable service providers. For the reasons which follow, it appears that in the context of the present case the objectives of the First Amendment are best served by permitting the marketplace to control decisionmaking by intermediate cable program syndicators such as the defendants here.

 II

 Glendora, a creator of television programming, seeks relief against Cablevision Systems Corporation and several of its personnel for rejecting some of her programming. Defendants move to dismiss on various grounds, including the filing of two other lawsuits based on essentially the same factual contentions, 93 Civ 8344 (CLB) (SDNY), dismissed on February 28, 1994 after oral argument before Hon. Charles L. Brieant of this court on February 18, 1994 and County of Westchester Index # 94-03288 (filed March 7, 1994).

 Defendants ask that their motion be converted into one for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 56 if appropriate, and they seek an injunction against further lawsuits brought by plaintiff against them.

 While this case may properly be dismissed on procedural grounds alone because of the abuse of repetitive litigation involved, it is important that issues presented by pro se litigants raising matters of public concern also be addressed on the merits where appropriate. See Soling v. New York, 804 F. Supp. 532 (SDNY 1992). Consequently, the merits as well as the procedural problem presented here are treated below.

 Plaintiff has filed a number of cross-motions which need not be considered in light of the disposition made of defendants' applications.

 III

 The complaint is dismissed on the grounds that:

 (a) Duplicative litigation is impermissible;

 (b) No violation of the Constitution or any federal statute law has been set forth in plaintiff's papers; there is no reason to retain nonfederal claims, especially where state court litigation concerning the same matters is now pending.

 Injunctive relief against plaintiff, while permissible under In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226 (2d Cir 1993), should be considered only as a last resort and may be unnecessary. I have every confidence that plaintiff, now that her federal claims have been fully explored for a second time and the rule against overlapping lawsuits clearly set forth, will refrain from repeating the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.