`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC. and HULU, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`KNOXVILLE DIVISION
`
`
`3:20-CV-00544-DCLC-DCP
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, the City of Knoxville, Tennessee (“the City”), initiated this action, individually
`
`and on behalf of other Tennessee municipalities and counties, seeking to require Defendants
`
`Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) and Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) to obtain franchises and pay fees due to their
`
`provision of video services throughout Tennessee, under the Competitive Cable and Video
`
`Services Act (“CCVSA” or “the Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-59-301, et seq. [Doc. 1]. Netflix and
`
`Hulu subsequently moved to dismiss the City’s Class Action Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
`
`12(b)(6), arguing, in relevant part, that they are not subject to the requirements of the Act because
`
`they do not provide “video service[s]” within the meaning of the Act [Docs. 31, 35].
`
`The Court, finding the question of whether Netflix’s and Hulu’s services fall within the
`
`CCVSA’s definition of “video service” to be novel and determinative of the cause, certified the
`
`following question to the Tennessee Supreme Court:
`
`Whether Netflix and Hulu are video service providers, as that term is defined in the
`relevant provision of the CCVSA, Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-59-303(19).
`
`[Doc. 70, pg. 4]. In light of the certification, the Court held the motions to dismiss in abeyance
`
`and stayed the matter pending an answer from the Tennessee Supreme Court [Id.].
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00544-DCLC-DCP Document 76 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 691
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`On November 22, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an Opinion and Judgment
`
`answering the certified question in the negative—i.e., “Netflix and Hulu do not provide ‘video
`
`service’ within the meaning of the Act and thus do not qualify as ‘video service providers.’” [Doc.
`
`74, pg. 1]. Considering the City’s claims are wholly contingent on the assertion that Netflix and
`
`Hulu are video service providers, “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts
`
`that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73
`
`(1984). Therefore, dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is appropriate.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 31, 35] are GRANTED, and the
`
`City’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate judgment shall enter.
`
`SO ORDERED:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Clifton L. Corker
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00544-DCLC-DCP Document 76 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 692
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
