EMI v. Karen Records

download EMI v. Karen Records

of 10

Transcript of EMI v. Karen Records

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    1/10

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    xEMI ENTERTAINMENT WORLD, INC.,

    P l a i n t i f f , 05 Civ. 390 (LAP)- aga ins t -

    MEMORANDUM & ORDERKAREN RECORDS, INC., KARENPUBLISHING INC., BIENVENIDORODRIGUEZ, ISABEL RODRIGUEZ andFIDEL HERNANDEZ,

    Defendants .- X

    LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief Uni ted Sta tes D i s t r i c t Judge:P l a i n t i f f , a f t e r being gran ted p a r t i a l summary judgment

    [dkt . no. 90] in the above-referenced ac t ion , wa s awarded a$100,000 judgment in i t s ac t ion aga ins t Defendants fo r copyrightin f r ingement . See Memorandum and Order (Holwell , J . ) , Aug. 31,2011 [dkt . no. 110] ("Judgment").) Defendants move to s e t as idethe judgment pursuant to Federa l Rule of C iv i l Procedure60(b) (1), (3) , and (4) on the grounds t ha t i n t i f f l ackeds tanding to br ing the l awsu i t and the re fo re t ha t t h i s Courtlacked j u r i s d i c t i on to hear t h i s case . For the reasons s e tfo r th here in , Defendants ' motion [dkt . no. 128] i s GRANTED, th ejudgment [dkt . no. 110] i s VACATED, and th e compla in t i sDISMISSED.

    USDCSDNYD O C U ~ , . f f i N 1 "ELECTRONICftJ.J..Y FILEDDOC II:DAlE F I L E j ) : ~ . F , 0-,3

    - - ......_--,- , --.;..,.

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    2/10

    2

    I . BACKGROUNDThe backgr ound of t hi s act i on has been di scussed i n t wo

    opi ni ons gr ant i ng par t i al summary j udgment and damages t o

    Pl ai nt i f f , and f ami l i ar i t y wi t h whi ch i s pr esumed.

    Pl ai nt i f f EMI Ent er t ai nment Wor l d I nc. ( EMI or

    Pl ai nt i f f ) i s a musi c publ i sher t hat pur por t ed t o own or

    cont r ol copyr i ght s t o f our musi cal composi t i ons t hat Def endant s

    Karen Recor ds, I nc. and Karen Publ i shi ng I nc. owned by

    i ndi vi dual Def endant s I sabel Rodr i guez and husband Bi enveni do

    Rodr i guez( col l ect i vel y, Def endant s) used on r ecor ds t hey

    r el eased between 1999 and 2001. ( J udgment at 2. ) Begi nni ng i n

    1998, EMI i ni t i at ed sever al l egal act i ons agai nst Def endant s f or

    copyr i ght i nf r i ngement based on unpai d r oyal t i es f or numer ous

    composi t i ons, i ncl udi ng t he f our at i ssue i n t hi s acti on. ( I d. )

    EMI f i l ed t hi s sui t i n 2005. Fol l owi ng di scover y i n 2008,

    par t i es f i l ed cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment . ( I d. at 3. )

    I n March 2009, t he Cour t grant ed summary j udgment t o EMI wi t h

    r espect t o cer t ai n of i t s cl ai ms, speci f i cal l y t hat EMI had

    t er mi nat ed Def endant s compul sory l i censes to cer t ai n of t he

    composi t i ons, and t hat t he Def endant s never obt ai ned a l i cense

    t o t he r emai ni ng composi t i on. ( I d. at 3. ) I n 2011, t he Cour t

    f ound wi l l f ul copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , and gr ant ed Pl ai nt i f f s a

    $100, 000 j udgment .

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    3/10

    3

    Def endant s f i l ed t hi s mot i on t o set asi de t he j udgment on

    August 15, 2012. ( See Memor andum of Law i n Suppor t of

    Def endant s Mot i on t o Set Asi de J udgment [ dkt . no. 130] ( Def .

    Memo) . ) Def endants move t o set asi de t he j udgment on t he

    gr ounds t hat newl y di scover ed evi dence shows t hat Pl ai nt i f f has

    no di r ect owner shi p i nt er est i n t he copyr i ght s over whi ch i t has

    sued because those r i ght s are owned by subsi di ar i es of t he

    Pl ai nt i f f who wer e never j oi ned t o t he act i on. ( Def . Memo at

    1. ) Thus, Def endant s ar gue, Pl ai nt i f f s l acked st andi ng t o br i ng

    t he act i on. ( I d. ) Def endant s move t o vacate t he j udgment

    pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 1) , ( 3) ,

    and ( 4) .

    I I . DI SCUSSI ONa. Legal St andard

    Under Rul e 60( b) , a di st r i ct cour t may r el i eve a par t y f r om

    a f i nal j udgment or or der f or , among ot her s, t he f ol l owi ng

    r easons: ( 1) mi st ake, i nadver t ence, sur pr i se, or excusabl e

    negl ect; ( 3) f r aud ( whet her i nt r i nsi c or ext r i nsi c),

    mi sr epr esent at i on, or mi sconduct by an opposi ng par t y; or , ( 4)

    t he j udgment i s voi d. Mot i ons under Rul e 60( b) are addr essed

    t o t he sound di scret i on of t he di st r i ct cour t and ar e gener al l y

    gr ant ed onl y upon a showi ng of except i onal ci r cumst ances.

    Mendel l ex rel . Vi acom, I nc. v. Gol l ust , 909 F. 2d 724, 731 ( 2d

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    4/10

    4

    Ci r . 1990) ( ci t i ng Nemai zer v. Baker , 793 F. 2d 58, 61 ( 2d Ci r .

    1986) ) .

    Rul e 60( b) ( 1) per mi t s a di st r i ct cour t t o gr ant r el i ef

    f r om a j udgment based on mi st ake, i nadver t ence, sur pr i se, or

    excusabl e negl ect . J ohnson v. Uni v. of Rochest er Med. Ct r . ,

    642 F. 3d 121, 125 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P.

    60( b) ( 1) ) . The Cour t of Appeal s has i nt er pr et ed mi st ake t o

    i ncl ude bot h er r or s of a par t y or hi s r epr esent at i ves, see I n r e

    Emergency Beacon Corp. , 666 F. 2d 754, 759 ( 2d Ci r . 1981) , and

    mi st akes of l aw or f act made by t he di st r i ct cour t , see I n r e

    310 Assocs. , 346 F. 3d 31, 35 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) .

    Rul e 60( b) ( 4) pr ovi des t hat t he cour t may vacat e a j udgment

    i f t he j udgment i s voi d. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60( b) ( 4) . A

    j udgment i s not voi d wi t hi n t he meani ng of Rul e 60( b) ( 4) mer el y

    because i t i s er r oneous. I n r e Texl on Cor p. , 596 F. 2d 1092,

    1099 ( 2d Ci r . 1979) ( ci t i ng 11 Wr i ght & Mi l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce

    and Procedur es 2862, at 198 ( 1973) ) . A j udgment i s voi d onl y

    i f t he cour t t hat r ender ed i t l acked j ur i sdi ct i on of t he subj ect

    mat t er , or of t he par t i es, or i f i t act ed i n a manner

    i nconsi st ent wi t h due pr ocess of l aw. Gr ace v. Bank Leumi

    Tr ust Co. of N. Y. , 443 F. 3d 180, 193 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng

    Texl on, 596 F. 2d at 1099) .

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 4 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    5/10

    5

    Fi nal l y, even wher e a movant can demonst r at e t hat one of

    t he enumer at ed gr ounds i n Rul e 60( b) appl i es, i n or der t o

    pr evai l t he movant must st i l l demonst r at e a st r ong case t hat t he

    movant has a mer i t or i ous cl ai m. Uni t ed St at es v. Bi l l i ni , No.

    99 Cr . 156, 2006 WL 3457834, at *2 ( S. D. N. Y. Nov. 22, 2006)

    ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ci r ami , 563 F. 2d 26, 35 ( 2d Ci r .

    1977) ) ; accor d Snyman v. W. A. Baum Co. , I nc. , 360 F. App x 251,

    254 ( 2d Ci r . 2010) ( [ T] he di st r i ct cour t may pr oper l y consi der

    t he mer i t s of t he under l yi ng act i on i n det er mi ni ng whet her t o

    gr ant a mot i on pur suant t o Rul e 60( b) . ) .

    b. Anal ysi sA cl ai m t hat a par t y l acks st andi ng t o br i ng sui t i s an

    at t ack on a cour t s subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t hat par t y.

    Bender v. Wi l l i amspor t Ar ea Sch. Di st . , 475 U. S. 534, 54142

    ( 1986) . St andi ng i s not subj ect t o wai ver , and t he cour t i s

    obl i gat ed t o addr ess s t andi ng even i n t he absence of t he i ssue

    bei ng r ai sed by t he par t i es t hemsel ves. Uni t ed St at es v. Hays,

    515 U. S. 737, 742 ( 1995) . Lack of st andi ng of t he par t y

    br i ngi ng sui t woul d r esul t i n a l ack of j ur i sdi cti on of t he

    Cour t t o hear t he mat t er and woul d r equi r e a di smi ssal of t he

    act i on. See Luj an v. Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 560

    61 ( 1992) ; Abor t i on Ri ght s Mobi l i zat i on, I nc. v. Baker , 885 F. 2d

    1020, 1023 ( 2d Ci r . 1989) . Pl ai nt i f f s st andi ng and owner shi p

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 5 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    6/10

    6

    i nt er est s i n t he copyr i ght s at i ssue wer e never chal l enged or

    anal yzed by t he cour t . ( Def . Memo at 3. ) Thus, t hi s i ssue i s

    r i pe f or r evi ew pur suant t o a Rul e 60 mot i on f or

    r econsi der at i on. See I n r e Bul k Oi l ( USA) I nc. , No. 93 Ci v.

    4492, 4494, 2007 WL 1121739, at *10 ( S. D. N. Y. Apr . 11, 2007) .

    Pl ai nt i f f does not di sput e t hat i t does not have, and has

    never had, di r ect owner shi p of any of t he copyr i ght s at i ssue i n

    t hi s l awsui t but ar gues t hat t he r i ght s at i ssue ar e owned by

    whol l y- owned subsi di ar i es of Pl ai nt i f f or ent i t i es on behal f

    of whi ch Pl ai nt i f f was aut hor i zed t o act . ( See Let t er f r om Nei l

    J . Sal t zman, Esq. , Sept . 7, 2012 [ dkt . no. 132] ( Def . Supp.

    Memo) , at 1; Pl ai nt i f f s Memor andum i n Opposi t i on t o

    Def endant s Mot i on, Sept . 27, 2012 [ dkt . no. 133] ( Pl . Opp. ) ,

    at 3. ) Copyr i ght cer t i f i cat i on not i ces pr ovi ded by Pl ai nt i f f

    demonst r ate t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s not t he named owner of t he

    copyr i ght s. ( Decl . of J or dan Gr eenber ger i n Opposi t i on t o

    Mot i on t o Set Asi de and St ay Enf orcement of J udgment , Sept . 27,

    2012 [ dkt . no. 143] , at Ex. 3. ) Pl ai nt i f f has al so not

    at t empt ed t o j oi n t he subsi di ar i es t hat do hol d t he r i ght s t o

    t he composi t i ons at i ssue as r eal par t i es i n i nt er est pur suant

    t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 17 unt i l t hi s t i me. ( Def . Supp. Memo at 1. )

    There i s suppor t f r om deci si ons i n t hi s ci r cui t f or t he

    hol di ng t hat a parent company l acks st andi ng t o br i ng cl ai ms on

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 6 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    7/10

    7

    behal f of i t s subsi di ar y. See, e. g. , Fei nber g v. Kat z, No. 99

    Ci v. 45, 2002 WL 1751135, at *6 (S. D. N. Y. J ul y 26, 2002) ; Di esel

    Sys. , Lt d. v. Yi p Shi ng Di esel Eng g Co. , Lt d. , 861 F. Supp.

    179, 181 ( E. D. N. Y. 1994) ; Br oss Ut i l s. Ser v. Cor p. v.

    Aboubshai t , 618 F. Supp. 1442, 1445 ( S. D. N. Y. 1985) . Thi s

    concl usi on f ol l ows f r om t he pr i nci pl e t hat a par ent cor por at i on

    cannot cr eat e a subsi di ar y and t hen i gnor e i t s separ at e

    corporat e exi st ence whenever i t woul d be advant ageous t o the

    parent . Fei nberg, 2002 WL 1751135 at *6 ( quot i ng Pa. Eng g

    Cor p. v. I sl i p Res. Recover y Agency, 710 F. Supp. 456, 465

    ( E. D. N. Y. 1989) ) . Pl ai nt i f f s do not pr ovi de i n t hei r paper s a

    ci t at i on t o a case hol di ng ot her wi se. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f ar gues

    t hat i t was aut hor i zed t o act on t he copyr i ght cl ai mant s

    behal f , ( Pl . Opp. at 3) , t he l aw r equi r es mor e t han an assurance

    of aut hor i zat i on t o conf er Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng upon a par t y.

    I n l i ght of t he r ecent l y unear t hed det er mi nat i on t hat

    Pl ai nt i f f l acks of st andi ng, Rul es 60( b) ( 1) and 60( b) ( 4) pr ovi de

    appr opr i ate bases i n t hi s case t o vacat e t he j udgment . The

    mi st ake i n t hi s case was t hat al l par t i es and t he Cour t

    assumed j ur i sdi cti on over Pl ai nt i f f based on Pl ai nt i f f s

    r epr esent at i ons t hat i t was t he owner of t he copyr i ght s at

    i ssue. Al t hough Def endant coul d have r ai sed t hi s i ssue at an

    ear l i er st age i n t he pr oceedi ng, and even admi t t ed t hat

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 7 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    8/10

    8

    Pl ai nt i f f cont r ol l ed t he copyr i ght s at i ssue, ( Pl . Opp. at 79,

    12) , st andi ng cannot be wai ved by ei t her part y, and t he Cour t

    has an obl i gat i on t o r ai se t he mat t er sua spont e. See Mancuso

    v. Consol . Edi son Co. of N. Y. , 130 F. Supp. 2d 584, 58889

    ( S. D. N. Y. 2001) . Because of t hi s j ur i sdi cti onal f l aw, t he

    j udgment i s voi d.

    Fur t her , al t hough Pl ai nt i f f has at t empt ed t o pr ovi de

    r at i f i cat i on by the subsi di ar y owner s of t he copyr i ght s, or t o

    now j oi n t hose subsi di ar i es as par t i es i n r eal i nt er est pur suant

    t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 17, ( Pl . Opp. at 1213) , Rul e 17 r equi r es

    t hat j oi nder t o be made wi t hi n a reasonabl e t i me af t er an

    obj ect i on i s r ai sed, and t he par t y must have a r easonabl e basi s

    f or nami ng t he wr ong par t y at t he out set . See Advanced

    Magnet i cs, I nc. v. Bayf r ont Par t ner s, I nc. , 106 F. 3d 11, 20 ( 2d

    Ci r . 1997) ( [ T] he di st r i ct cour t r et ai ns some di scret i on t o

    di smi ss an act i on where t here was no sembl ance of any r easonabl e

    basi s f or t he nami ng of an i ncor r ect par t y . . . . ) .

    Def endant s st at e t hat t hey al er t ed Pl ai nt i f f t o t he

    j ur i sdi ct i onal def ect i n Apr i l 2012, onl y t o be di r ect ed i n

    ci r cl es t o t he or i gi nal copyr i ght not i ces and ot her sour ces over

    t he cour se of sever al mont hs. ( See Decl . of Nei l J . Sal t zman i n

    Support of Def endant s Mot i on t o Set Asi de J udgment , Aug. 15,

    2012, [ dkt. no. 129] , at Ex. B. ) Pl ai nt i f f s counsel , who has

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 8 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    9/10

    9

    been r epr esent i ng Pl ai nt i f f t hr oughout t he ent i r e cour se of t hi s

    l i t i gat i on begi nni ng i n 2005, di d not seek t o remedy t he

    si t uat i on pr ocedur al l y. Thus, t he r easonabl e per i od of t i me f or

    j oi nder of t he subsi di ar i es has passed. Addi t i onal l y, Pl ai nt i f f

    has not i dent i f i ed a r easonabl e basi s f or f ai l i ng t o name t he

    subs i di ar i es as pl ai nt i f f s i ni t i al l y. The i dent i t i es of t he

    r eal par t i es i n i nt er est have been known t o Pl ai nt i f f si nce t he

    i ni t i at i on of t he l awsui t , as demonst r at ed i n t he copyr i ght

    paper s Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed t o t he cour t . ( See Decl . of Chr i st os

    P. Badavas, Mar . 14, 2008 [ dkt . no. 57] , at Exs. G- J . )

    Fi nal l y, as st at ed above, Def endant s argument t hat

    Pl ai nt i f f l acks st andi ng i s a mer i t or i ous def ense, and t hus

    sat i sf i es t he r equi r ement of Rul e 60( b) t hat a movi ng part y must

    demonst r ate a mer i t or i ous cl ai m. Bi l l i ni , 2006 WL 3457834, at

    *2.

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 9 of 10

  • 7/28/2019 EMI v. Karen Records

    10/10

    I I I . CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons , Defendants ' motion [dkt . no.

    128] i s GRANTED, the judgment [dkt . no. 110] i s VACATED, and thecomplaint i s DISMISSED. In l i gh t of the judgment be ingvacated, a i n t i f f ' s pending motion fo r a t to rne y ' s fees [dkt .no. 114] i s denied as moot.

    SO ORDERED.

    Dated: New York, New YorkJune A, 2013 ~ A l A { ) ' , y J ~UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    10

    Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 10 of 10