poindexter v. cash money - bow wow copyright infringement opinion

8/12/2019 Poindexter v. Cash Money - Bow Wow Copyright Infringement Opinion

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/poindexter-v-cash-money-bow-wow-copyright-infringement-opinion 1/28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROBERT POINDEXTER,

P i n t i f f 13 Civ. 1155

- aga in s t - OPINION

CASH MONEY RECORDS,

Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

A P P EA RAN C E S:

PRO SE

ROBERT POINDEXTER

153-27 120 Avenue

Jamaica NY 11434

TTORNEYS FOR DEFEND NT

SHAPIRO, ARATO ISSERLES LLP

500 f th Avenue 40th Floor

New York NY 1010

Cynthia S. Arato Esq.

James Darrow Esq.

i

Case 1:13-cv-01155-RWS Document 45 Filed 03/03/14 of 28



Sweet D.J.

Defendant Cash Money Records ( Cash Money o r the

Defendant ) has moved pursuant to . R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6) to

dismiss the Complaint of pro se p l a i n t i f f Robert Poindexter

( Poindexter or the Pla in t i f f ) and pursuan t to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56 fo r summary judgment . Upon the f ac t s and conclus ions se t

fo r th below, the motions are granted .

Prior Proceedings

The P l a i n t i f f l ed h is compla int on February 20, 2013

( Complaint ) a l leg ing t ha t a sound record ing and the underly ing

musical composi t ion t ha t he, r espec t ive ly , co-produced and co

wrote were sampled without au thor i za t ion in a recording by an

a r t i s t known as ow Wow re leased by the Defendant .

The Complaint a l leges t ha t the PI i i s a

songwri te r and music producer and the Defendant, Cash Money, i s

in the business of recording, se l l i n g and d i s t r i bu t ing

[p]honograph [ r ] ecords . (Compl. 2) . The Complaint concerns a

record ing t i t l e d S t i l l Bal l in , con ta ined on an a l l eged album

t i t l e d Green ght 3 , by t a r t i s t Shad Gregory Moss,

1




-

pro s s i o n a l l y known as Bow Wow It a l l e g e s t ha t S t i l l Bal l i n

con ta ins an unauthorized sample of a musica l composi t ion and

sound record ing t i t l e d Love Gonna Pack Up and Walk Out (Love

Gonna Pack Up) , which i n f r i n g e s P l a i n t i f f ' s a l l eged r i g h t s in

these works .

The Complaint a l l eges t ha t Poindex ter co-wrote t he

musical compos ion Love Gonna Pack Up, and co-produced a

c l a s s i c record ing of t ha t work in 1972, performed by the

recording group The Persuaders . Id . 4-5) . The Complaint

notes t ha t he i s no t now copyr igh t owner of Love Gonna

Pack Up, ( id . 10 , bu t t ha t a w r i t t e n agreement e x i s t s with

the copyr igh t owner Warner /Chappel l [Music] a music pub l i sh ing

company - g ran t ing [Poindexter ] t r i g h t t o pe r sona l ly f i l e

such a complain t as t h i s , The Complaint a l l e g e s a r i gh t

to l ikewise ing i s ac t ion for t Sound record ing (or

master ) , as wel l as t composi t ion of Love Gonna Pack Up

under the Copyright Act and the United Sta tes Cons t i t u t i on .

( Id . ) .

Cash Money i s a l l eged to have re sed the reco ng

in d i spu te . id . 4 ( a l l eg ing t ha t Cash Money

sampled Love Gonna Pack Up i n t o it s [ s ic ] ... record ing

2




' S t i l l Bal l in ' ' ' ) ; id . 6 ( tha t ' [ t J he i l l e g a l usage i s t ha t

Cash Money did not acquire au thor i za t ion , to use the l ega l

vers ion ) ; id . 7 (a l leging t h a t Cash Money i n f r inged the

copyright by d i s t r i b u t i n g the work fo r f ree to the general

pub l ic on i n t e rne t downloads ) ; id . WH R TOFOR c lause (seeking

damages s ince the date of the f i r s t i l l e g a l use here in by Cash

Money ) ) .

The i n s t an t motions were marked fu l ly submit ted on

October 16, 2013.

The acts

The f ac t s are se t fo r th in the Defendan t ' s Sta tement

of Undisputed Facts and the Aff i rmat ion in Opposi t ion to the

Motion and are undisputed except as noted.

The Pl a i n t i f f i s a songwri te r and music producer and

Cash Money i s in the bus iness of recording, s e l l i ng and

d i s t r i b u t i n g [pJhonograph [ r Jecords .

3




The Complaint concerns a recording t i t l e d S t i l l

Bal l in , contained on an album t i t l ed Green Light 3 , by the

a r t i s t Shad Gregory Moss, profess ional ly known as Bow Wow.

The Comp in t al leges tha t S t i l l Bal l in contains an

unauthorized sample of a musical composit ion and sound recording

t i t l ed Love Gonna Pack Up and Walk Out (Love Gonna Pack Up),

thereby in inging Pla in t i f f ' s al leged copyrights those

a l legedly sampl works and tha t Cash Money re leased and/or

s t r ibu t S t i l l Ball in on the Interne t and tha t S t i l l

Ball in i s Cash Money's recording. (CampI. 4, 6 7).

According to Bow Wow Cash Money was not involved with

and did not par t i c ipa te in the crea t ion , recording, product ion,

re se, or s t r ibu t ion of Green Light 3 or S t i l l Ball in

and Bow Wow re leased Green Light 3 and i t s recording S t i l l

Ball in on his own. Before Pla in t i f f complained of the al leged

infringement, Bow Wow never not i ed or otherwise communicated

with Cash Money about Green ght 3 or S t i l l and no

one did so on his behal f .

A copy of Cash Money's logo appears on cer ta in

representa t ions of the cover of Green Light 3 , as re leased

4




by ow Wow on t In te rne t , but Cash Money had noth ing to do

with , and did not au thor ize , p lac ing t h i s logo on the cover .

The pplicable Standards

On a motion to dismiss pursuan t to Rule 12 (b) (6) , a l l

fac tua l a l lega t ions in the complaint are accep ted as t rue , and

a l l in fe rences are drawn favor of pleader . Mil ls v. Polar

, 12 F.3d 1170, 1174 (2d r . 1993) . 'The i s s u e~i s not whether a p l a i n t i f f wi l l u l t ima te ly preva i l but whether

the c la imant i s e n t i t l e d to o f f e r evidence to support the c la ims

378 Cir . 1995) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,

236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974)) .

To surv ive a motion to smiss pursuan t to Rule

12 (b) (6) , a complaint must co n ta in s u f f i c i e n t fac tua l mat te r ,

accepted as t rue , to ' s t a t e a cla im to r e l i e f t h a t i s plaus e

on i t s face. '1 t Ashcrof t v. 1 , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quot ing Bel l Atl . . v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929

(2007) ) . P l a i n t i f f s must a l l ege s u f f i c i e n t f ac t s to nudge [

t he i r c la ims across the l i n e from conceivab le to p lau s ib l e .

, 56 F.3d 375,

5




Twombly, 550 U.S. a t 570. Though t Court must accept the

f ac tua l a l l ega t ions of a complaint as t rue , t i s ' no t bound to

accept as t rue a l ega l conclusion couched as a f ac tua l

a l l ega t ion . II 129 S. Ct. a t 1950 (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. a t 555).

The 12 (b) 6) Motion s Granted

Approximately 22 months ago, in Poindexter v. MI~ e ~ ~ __ __ ~ _ No. 11 Civ. 559(LTS) (JLC) , 2012 W 1027639

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2012) , the Honorable Laura Taylor Swa

di ss a copyr ight fr ingement c la im brought by a i n t i f f

aga ins t MI Record Group Inc . Judge Swain held in MI t t

Pl a i n t i f f was not an owner o f a se t o f sound recordings

including the sound recording a t i ssue in t s case - and thus

lacked s tanding to sue MI for a l leged copyright inf r ingement of

one of those wor . Id. a t *3. Judge Swain 's dec is ion bars

Poindexter from r e - l i t i g a t i n g h is l ack o f s tand ing .

C o l l a t e r a l es toppe l bars a pa r ty from r e - l iga t ing

a second proceeding an i s sue t ha t was ided aga s t him in a

pr io r proceeding . See Allen v. McCur 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)

( once a cour t has decided an i s sue of f ac t or law necessa ry to

6




i t s judgment, t ha t dec i s ion may prec l r liti ion of t

i ssue in a s u i t on a f f e ren t cause of ac t ion invo a par ty

to f i r s t case . ) . A p adverse ru l i n g w i l l have

c o l l a t e r a l es toppe l e f f e c t in a subsequent ac t ion when ( I )

i d en t i c a l i ssue was ra i sed in a prev ious proceeding; 2) the

i s sue was ac tu a l l y l i t i g a t and de in t prev ious

proceeding; ( 3 ) t pa r ty had a fu l l and ir oppor tun i ty to

l i t i g a t e i s sue ; and 4) the r e s o l u t i o n of the i s sue was

necessary to support a v a l id and f ina l judgment on the mer s .

Bal l v. A.O. Smith 451 F.3d 66, 69 2d Cir . 2006)

quot ing 337 F.3d 253, 258 n.5 2d r .

2003) ) .

Even though a p l a i n t i f f ' s fac tua l a l l eg a t i o n s must be

accept as t rue a l l reasonab le rences drawn in the

a i n t i f f ' s favor on a motion to dismiss , l a t e r a l es toppe l

wil l nonethe less bar a p l a i n t i f f ' s aim when the p l a i n t i f f ' s

f ac tua l a l l ega t ions have en decided rwise prev ious

l i t i g a t i o n . Jacobs v. Law Off ices of Leona No. 04

Civ. 7607, 2005 W 1844642, a t *3 S.D.N.Y. Ju ly29, 2005); see

a l so Li . v. N.Y.C. Econ. Dev. Co No.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

08 Civ. 3810 RJS), 2011 W 2226625, a t *3 S.D.N.Y. June 1,

2011) ( [ I J t i s wel l s e t t t h a t a cour t may ss a a on




res j ud ica t a or c o l l a t e r a l es toppe l grounds on a Rule 12(b) (6)

motion . (quoting Sassower v. Abrams, 833 F. Supp. 253, 264 n.18

(S.D.N.Y. 1993)) . In t h a t event , a cour t may take j u d i c i a l

not ice of those proceedings and f ind t ha t p l a i n t i f f [] [ i s ]

estopped from r e -a l l eg ing those f a c t s . Jacobs, 2005 W 1844642,

a t *3; see a lso Linden Airpor t , 2011 W 2226625, a t *3

(d ismissal under Rule 12(b) (6) on c o l l a t e r a l es toppe l grounds

appropr ia te where i t i s c l ea r from the face of the complain t ,

and cons idera t ion of matters which the cour t may take j u d i c i a l

not ice of , t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s cla ims are bar red as a mat te r of

law (quoting Conopco, Inc . v. Roll I n t ' l , 231 F.3d 82, 86 (2d

Cir . 2000)) .

C o l l a t e r a l es toppel e f f e c t has been given to pr io r

determinat ions t h a t a p l a i n t i f f i s not a v a l id copyr igh t owner

and, thus , lacks s tanding to sue for infr ingement . See, e .g . ,

Akhenaten v. Najee, LLC, 544 F. Supp. 2d 320, 331-33 (S.D.N.Y.

2008) (co l l a t e ra l es toppe l e f f e c t given to p r i o r dec i s ion t ha t ,

i n t e r a l i a , p l a i n t i f f did not es tab l i sh he had r igh t s in the

i n t e l l e c tua l proper ty a t i s sue) ; Whimsical i ty , Inc . v. Bat ta t ,

27 F. Supp. 2d 456, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ( c o l l a t e r a l es toppe l

e f fec t given to p r i o r dec i s ion t ha t p l a i n t i f f had no va l id

copyright) .

8




As he s here , Pia i a l leged in EMI t ha t t

defendant record 1 1 had re leased a recording t ha t sampled a

d i f f e r e n t reco ng t Pia i f f had co-produced and over

which he a l l eged ly enjoyed a r igh t to sue . See EMI, 2012 W

1027639, a t *1. Judge Swain found t h a t P l a i n t i f f lacked s tanding

to sue for infr ingement of his a l leged recording, sed on the

terms o f a 1998 agreement between Pia i f f and h i s co

producers , on the one hand, and Atlan t ic Recording Corporat ion,

on the r 1998 Agreement ) , which a i n t i f f had

a t t ached to his i n i t i a l plead ing in the case . Id. a t *1, *3;

(see a lso Declara t ion of James Darrow, Aug. 23, 2013 ( Darrow

Decl . ) , Ex. 1, a t 6-9) .

Judge Swain found t ha t the 1998 Agreement governs t

ownership of t en sound recordings ( Mas ters ) , co-produced

Pl a i n t i f f and others and i d e n t i f i on the agreement ' s a t t a

Exhibi t A. See EMI, 2012 W 1027639, a t *1, *3; (Darrow Declo,

Ex. 1 a t 9). One of those Masters (recording number one on the

exhibi t ) was t i t l e d Thin ne Between Love and Hate , (Darrow

e . , Ex. 1 a t 9), and was recording a t i s sue in EMI. See

EMI, 2012 W 1027639, a t *1. Another of the Masters (recording

9




number s ix) i s the record ing a t i s sue here . (Darrow Decl. , . 1

a t 9 ( l i s t i ng Love Gonna Pack [U]p )) .

As Judge Swain observed in EMI the 1998 Agreement

s t a t e s t ha t

the Masters ( toge ther with a l l reproduc t ions

der ived therefrom and per rmances embodied

the reon) , from the incept ion of the recording

t he reof , sha l l be [A t lan t i c ' s ] prope r ty in

perpe tu i ty throughout the world f ree from any

cla ims whatsoever by you [ i . e . , Poindexter ] , and[At lant ic ] sha l l have the exc lus ive r igh t

throughout the world to copyr ight the Masters

our name as the author and owner of them .

Each Master sha l l be cons i red a work made for

h i re for us .

2012 W 1027639, a t *1; (Darrow Decl. Ex. 1 a t 6) . In l i gh t of

these express terms, Judge Swain concluded t ha t the 1998

Agreement fo rec lose [s ] Pla in t i ' s argument t h a t he ever had

ownership r igh t s in the maste rs , id . a t *3, held t h a t P l a i n t i f f

lacked s tand ing to sue for infr ingement of the record ing a t

i s sue in MI and dismissed a i n t i f f ' s cla im t ha t t h i s recording

had been inf r inged, id . a t *3, *5.

P l a i n t i f f neces sa r i ly r a i s the i s sue of his

ownership o f the recordings governed by the 1998 Agreement when

he sued MI for copyr ight in ingement regarding one of these

10




Because P l a i n t i f f ' s ownership o f hi s record ing was a

necessary element of hi s in ingement claim EMI, see Wolk,

840 F. Supp. 2d a t 741, the r eso lu t ion of the ownership i ssue

was necessary to support Judge Swain 's va l id and f judgment

on the meri t s .

Judge Swain 's smissa l in MI cons t i tu t es a f ina l and

binding judgment t ha t PIa i f f does not have s tanding to sue

fo r ingement of t record ings governed by t 1998

Agreement. In l i gh t o f t h i s p r i o r judgment, P l a i n t i f f lacks

ng to sue for infr ingement of "Love Gonna Pack Up

recording based on t h i s work. Although P la in t i f f ' s Complaint

a l l eges he s "a wri t t en agreement w h the copyright

owner Warner/Chappell gran t ing [him] t r igh t to pe rsona l ly

f i l e a complaint as t h i s , (Compl. 10), Warner/Chappel l ' s

agreement with P l a i n t i f f i s a publ i sh ing agreement concerning

PIa iff s r igh t s in and to various musica l composi t ions, EMI,

2012 W 1027639, a t *3. i s publ i sh ing agreement does not

purport to gran t h the r igh t to sue for i r ingement of a

sound record ing , and Judge Swain prev ious ly r e j ec t ed t h i s same

a l l eg a t i o n in EMI. See id . ("Even i f the Court were to assume

(1) t ha t t h i s c lause contempla ted s u i t s for in ngement of the

12




the r eso lu t ion of

l t

sound recording

e the

master as wel l as the sound reco ng copyr ight , and (2) t h a t

Warner/Chappell Music owned the master , the c lause could not

confer s t on Pl a i n t i f f to br ing s u i t . ) .

PIa i f f has sought to avoid c o l l a t e r a l es toppe l

because , a s se r t s , the sound record ing i s sue i s not the same

in t h i s case as in EMI. (Memorandum Of Law In Opposi t ion To

Defendant 's Motion To Dismiss Complaint And For Summary

Judgment ( . Br. ) a t 6); see Bal l v. A.a..

451~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F.3d 66, 69 (2d Cir . 2006) ( f i r s t element of c o l l a t e r a l es toppe l

r equ i r e s the i d e n t i c a l i s sue was r a i s ed in a prev ious

proceeding, , ) . l Pl a i n t i f f has asse r t ed t ha t t MI dec i s ion

forec los only h i s r i to sue for reasons of copyr igh t

owne , whereas \\ sound record ing i s sue in t h i s case i s

bas on roya l ty r i gh t s . ( . Br. 6) .

Pl a i n t i f f appears to r e ly on Sect 501(b) of

Act, which i z e s t h a t e i r l eg a l or

c i a l owners of an exc lus ive under a copyr may

sue in f r ingement . See 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) (prov ng t ha t

Pl a i n t i f f grants t ha t may

have been a subs tan t i a l element of my cla im, agree(s] t ha t

did have a fu l l and f a i r oppor tun i ty to i s sue in MI and

concedes t ha t the i s sue was an element (but not the only element )necessary in Judge Swain 's f ina l and judgment regarding the r igh t to

sue in t ha t case. (PI 's Br. 8) .

13

I




l ega l or b en e f i c i a l owner of an exc lus ive r i g h t under a

copyr igh t i s e n t i t l e d . . . to s t i t u t e an ac t ion fo r any

infr ingement of t ha t p a r t i c u l a r r igh t committed while or

i s the owner of i t ) . Under t prov i s ion , a l ega l owner can

anyone who holds tit to t t exc lus ive r igh t , see 17 U S C

§ 201(d), whereas b en e f i c i a l owners are l imi t ed to the o r ig in a l

au thor who t r a n s fe r such titl to another , but who are e n t i t

to receive roya l t i e s t new owner fo r the expl t a t i o n of

the au thor ' s work, see Harr i sv

Simon Schuster , Inc . ,~ ~646 F Supp. 2d 622, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (hoi ng r t y who

gran ted . . 1 t r igh t s in the Work in exchange r the

payment of roya l t i e s . qua l i f i e s as a ' b enef i c i a l owner '

fo r copyr igh t purposes ) . Pl a i n t i f f appears to cont t h a t MI

held only t ha t eked s tanding to sue fo r in f r ingement as a

l ega l owner of copyrights , and did not ss P la in t i f f ' s

s tand ing to sue sed on his being a benef ic 1 owner. (See

P I . ' s Br. 5 a ng a r igh t to a b en e f i c i a l l t y

ownersh / e re s t ) ; id . a t 1, 3 (same); . , 6 (same)) .

However, Judge Swain found MI t h a t P l a i n t i f f was a

par ty to a 1998 agreement ( the 1998 ) with Atlan t ic

Recording Co r a t i o n concerning ownership of ten sound

record ings co-produced by Pl a i n t i f f , luding Love Gonna Pack

14




Up ( the Masters ) and fu r t h e r found t h a t t h e 1998 Agreement

es t ab l i shed t h a t A t l a n t i c was t h e work-fo r -h i re owner of the

Masters and t h a t the agreement , accord ing ly , fo rec l o s e [d ]

P l a i n t i f f ' s argument t h a t he ever had ownersh ip r i g h t s in the

[M]as ters . EMI, 2012 WL 1027639, a t *1-*3. In so hold ing , Judge

Swain cons i r ed and r e j e c t e d the argument a i n t i f f has

advanced here , namely, t h a t hi s cont inued en t i t l emen t t o

r o y a l t i e s makes him a bene c i a l owner of the Masters . Id . a t

*3. As Judge Swa exp la ined , [ e ]v e ry c i r c u i t to cons ider the

i s sue s ld t h a t the c re a t o r o f a work fo r h i r e [as the

Masters a re under the 1998 Agreement] who rece s r o y a l t i e s

does not qua l i fy as a n e f i c i a l owner . Id . Accord ing ly , Judge

Swain 's c o n t ro l l i n g judgment in MI was t h a t P l a i n t i f f i s not

an owner, b en e f i a l or otherwise , of the Masters . Id . a t *2.

That i s sue i s p resen ted here , and under s e t t l e d p r in c ip l e s of

c o l l a t e r a l es to p p e l P l a i n t i f f may not r e l i t i g a t e it (See Def.

Br. 7-9) . The P l a i n t i l acks s tand ing to b r in g a aim fo r

i n f r ingement based upon the sound record ing Love Gonna Pack

Up.

Also, the P l a i n t i f f a t tempts to d i s t i n g u i s h MI on the

ground t h a t even a f t e r t h a t i s he r e t a i n s a r i g h t to sue

fo r f a i l u r e to pay produc t ion ro y a l t s sounding breach o f

15




co n t r ac t . (Pl . 7) . P l a i n t i f f asse s t ha t t h i s pu ta t ive

cla im re es to t a l leged roya l ty r i g h t s granted me in the

1998 agreement ," which purpor ted ly ob l iga tes Cash Money to

pay [P l a i n t i f f ] product ion roya l t i e s "Love Gonna Pack U[p] .

(Pl . Br. 8) . However, Cash Money i s not a r t y to the 1998

Agreement. y Poindexter , his coproducers , A t lan t i c

en te in to t h i s con t rac t . (See Declarat ion of James Darrow,

sworn to Aug. 23, 2013 ("Darrow Decl . ) , Ex. 1 p. 8 (Compl. Ex.

I a t 3) ) . Consequent ly , [ i Jn genera l ,i

an ent y i s not a

pa r ty to a con t rac t , no val breach of con t rac t c im e x i s t s

aga ins t t en t i t y . Hotel r ius B.V. v. PRT . No. 92~ ~

Civ. 4498 MBM), 1992 W 391264, a t *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 1992)

(grant ing motion to dismiss breach of con t rac t c la aga ins t

nonpar ty to con t rac t ) ; see a l so ~ ~ n t ~ e ~ r____ A ~ _ S ~ . ~ A ~ . _ E _ . ~ v ~ . ~ C ~ o ~ m _ t ~ r ~ a ~ d ~ e

Corp. , No. 00 C 0133(GBD), 2004 W 2793213, a t *4 (S.D.N.Y.

Dec. 6, 2004) ("Wi a con t rac tua l r e la t ionsh ip , the re can be

no a l leged breach . ) . P l a i n t i f f ' s e f fo r t to conver t hi s r red

infr ingement c la in to a breach of con t rac t claim the re fo re

f a i l s .

P l a i n t i f f observes t h a t Cash Money cannot use MI to

prec lude his claim infr ingement based upon the musica l

composit ion underly ing "Love Gonna Pack Up." (See PI. Br. 1 EMI

16




d id not deny my r i g h t s in the compos i on ) ) . Poindexter has

asse r t ed t ha t Judge Swain[ ' ] s Judgment saying t h a t I have a

va l id copyright in the compos ion i s i nd i spu tab le evidence

of one e s se n t i a l element[]11 of his claim. . Br. 1 0 1 1 ) .

However, MI says nothing a t a l l about the musica l composi t ion

underly ing Love Gonna Pack Up,1I and merely assume[d]1I a v a l id

copyr igh t and a copying in the i r r e l e v a n t compos ion a t i ssue

in order to smiss P l a i n t i f f ' s claim on other grounds . 2012 WL

1027639, a t *4. In add i t ion , Poindexter cannot use MI

af f i rmat ive ly in t h i s case , because Cash Money was not a

defendant in the p r i o r proceed ings . See Parklane Hosie Co.

I n c . v . Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.4 (1979) (explain ing contours

of offens ive c o l l a t e r a l es toppe l ) . Cash Money does not contend

otherwise .

Given the reasoning above, Pl a i n t i f f i s co l l a t e ra l l y

estopped fo r l ack of s tanding, and Defendan t ' s motion to dismiss

i s granted .

TheMotion

Forummary

JudgmentDismiss ing

Theomplaint

s

Granted

As the Second Circu i t has explained, while se

plead ings are read l ibe ra l ly l l and rpre ted to r a i s e the

s t ronges t arguments t h a t they sugges t , a c our t ' s app l ica t ion

17




s t does not r e l i ev e p l a i n t i f f of h isf t h i s f

duty to meet the i rements necessary to defea t a motion fo r

summary judgment . Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46,

50 (2d Cir . 2003) t a t omit ted) .

Although Pl a i n t i f f s a l l eged t h a t Cash Money

purpor ted ly re leased the re ng dispute , the evidence

submit ted es t ab l i s h e s Ca Money had no involvement in t h i s

work.A

defendant cannot be r e c t l y1

fo r copyright

infr ingement when t did not par t i a l l eged ly

in f r ing ing ac t s . As t h i s Court has ined, [d ] i r ec t

l i a b i l i t y for copyright in res i t i ona l

conduct ' t ha t ' causes ' the i n f r i Walk 840 F. Supp. 2d

F.3d 121, 130-31 (2d Cir . 2008) . Where P l a i n t i f f has fa i l ed

to es tab l i sh any v o l i t i o n a l conduct , a i infr ingement

defendant [ i s ] not l i a b l e for d i r e c t i n f r i n t , and summary

judgment should be granted in favor o f the f . Id . a t

743; see a lso Zappa v. Rykodisc, Inc . , 819 F. Supp. 2d 307, 316

(S.D.N.Y. 2011) ( Here, t he re i s no evidence es t ab l i s h in g rec t

l i a b i l i t y , s ince ZFT cannot poin t to v o l i t i o n a l conduct by

t caused the d i s t r i b u t i o n . Rather , Apple, not Ryko,

s t these t r a c ks . ) . The Second Circu i t has s t r e s

18

a t 742 ( c i t ing 536




t ha t evidence o f the defendant ' s v o l i t i o n a l conduct" i s "an

important element of r ec t l i a b i l i t y . Car toon Network, 536

F.3d a t 131.

Accordingly, where a p l a i n t i f f has es tab l i shed a

defendan t ' s involvement in the a l l eged ly in f r ing ing conduct ,

summary judgment must be awarded the defendant ' s favor . See,

e .g . , Lessem v. or , 766 F. Supp. 2d 504, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

(g ran t ing summary judgment where p l a i n t i f f s have produced no

evidence whatsoever t h a t [defendant record companies] had

anyth ing to do with the copyr igh t in f r ingement a l l eged t h i s

case ) ; Faulkner v. Nat ' l Geo. Soc' 211 F. Supp. 2d 450, 472

(S. D N. Y 2002) (where p i n t i f f s "have brought forward

absolute ly no evidence sugges t ing t h a t Kodak i t s e l f engaged in

conduct t ha t ola t ed any of the exc lus ive r igh t s gran t to

copyright holders . . p l a i n t i f f s cannot hold Kodak l i ab as a

d i rec t in f r inger as a mat te r of law") , modif ied on other

220 F. Supp.2d 237, a f f ' d sub nom. Faulkner v. N a t ' l

Geo. Enters . Inc . , 409 F.3d 26 (2d Cir . 2005); Pickwick Music

v. Record Prods. Inc . 292 F. Supp. 39, 41 (S.D.N.Y.

1968) (grant ing summary judgment in favor o f i nd iv idua l

defendants where fendant ' s evidence showed they did not

p a r t i c i p a t e in [corpora te defendant ' s ] copyr igh t in f r ingement ) .

19




P l a i n t i f f has not presen ted any evidence t h a t Cash

Money undertook any conduct inc lud ing the r e q u i s i t e v o l i t i o n a l

conduct" wi th respec t to the a l l eged ly in f r ing ing work. As se t

fo r th in the dec la ra t ion of Bow Wow t was Bow Wow and not

Cash Money, who crea ted , se l f - r e l e a se d and s e l f - d i s t r i b u t e d

"Green Light 3" and i t s record ing S t i l l B a l l i n . ' (See

Declara t ion of Shad Gregory Moss p /k /a Bow Wow," sworn to March

2013 ("Moss Decl . ) , a t3

(" I s e l f - r e l e a s e d .. a

mixtape

e n t i t l e d 'Green Light 3 , which inc luded the t r ack ' S t i l l

Bal l in . ' ' ' ) ) . This sworn tes t imony es t ab l i s h e s t h a t Cash Money

engaged in no conduct whatsoever with respec t to S t i l l

Bal l i n , ' v o l i t i o n a l or o therwise , and P l a i n t i f f has not

presented any subs tan t i a l evidence or f ac t s o f Cash Money's

involvement . Defendant thus cannot be l i a b l e fo r any a l l eged ly

in f r ing ing ma te r i a l con ta ined in t ha t work.

Bow Wow did improper ly a f f ix a small copy o f Cash

Money's logo to ce r t a in rep re sen ta t ions o f Green ght 3 ' s

"cover" on the In te rne t . (See Moss Declo 5; Defendan t ' s 56.1

Statement 11). For example, the logo can be discerned in the

screensho t a t tached as Exhibi t A to the Complaint . But even

viewed in the l i g h t most favo to Pl a i n t i f f , the presence of

20




s v o l i t i o n a l

r t i c ipa t ion in c rea t ing or re l ea s ing the a l l eged ly fr inging

work, because ow Wow has s t a t ed "Cash Money had nothing to

do with, and did not author ize , plac ing t h i s logo on t

mixtape ' s cover . . ) . The logo, by se l f , i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to

es tab l i sh Ca Money's pa r t i c ipa t in the crea t ion or re l ea se

of the work. See Brown v. Henderson 257 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir .

2001) (to de a t a motion fo r summary judgment, pIa i f f "must

come fo r th wi evidence s u f f i c i e n t to a l low a rea e jury

to f ind in s] favor ) .

t s logo f a i l s to es tab l i sh Cash

PIa i f f "mainta [s] t h a t Cash Money was

subs tan t l l y involved" in t a l leged i n f r i because the

record ing spu te [ i . e . , t a r t i s t ow Wow's t r ack S t i l l

B a l l i n , ' on mixtape "Green Light 3"] was re l ea sed on the

Cash Money I 1 . (P I . Br. 11). As "evidence" r t h i s

propos i t ion , a i n t i f f po s to the f ac t ow Wow i s s i

to a ng agreement wi Cash Money, and ce r t a in

unau t i c a t e d screenshots of Green Light 3 ' s "cover" with what

appears to be Cash Money's logo af f ixed . (See id . a t 1, 4, 13

CampI. Ex. A, i Poindexter Aff i rmat ion , ed Sept . 27, 3013

[s ic] ("Poindexter A f f . ) , Ex. A a t 1) . However, ow Wow s t a t e s ,

under l t y of per jury , t h a t he crea ted , se l f - r e l e a se d ,

21




s e l f - d i s t r i b u t ill Bal l in ; sh Money was not

involved or n o t i f i about the work; a t ha t he a f f ixed t

Cash Money logo on the mixtape ' s cover without Cash Money's

author iza t ion or involvement . (Def. Br. 11-13; Decla ra t ion of

Shad Gregory Moss p/k /a Bow Wow, sworn on March 2013 ("Moss

Declo") ]I ]I 3-5) .

a i f f i n s i s t s t ow Wow's dec la ra t ion i s not

cred ib l e or 1 1" because the producer of the a l l e y

in f r ing ing musica l bed underl ng S t i l l Bal l in , a person who

ow Wow i i s as Crack Beatz, (Moss Decl. ]I 6) , has not had

the oppor tuni ty to defend l in a cour t of law," (Pl . Br.

12; see a l so . a t 13 (" [T] re are no documents . . showing

i producer Crack Beatz admits to , or denies t accusa t ions

made him . . ) ) .

Pl a i n t i f f ' s a l ion t ha t Crack Beatz might dispute

ow Wow's account i s i n s u f f i ent to c r ea te a i s sue of

fac t as to the c re d i b i l y of ow Wow's sworn tes t imony. See

Kulak v i of New York 88 F.3d 63, 71 (2d Ci r . ~ 1996)

(" [C]onclusory s ta tements , conjecture , or u la t ion by the

par ty r e s i s t i ng the mot wil l not defea t summary judgment ." ) ;

51 F.3d 14, 18

22




(2d Cir . 1995) (summary judgment motion wil l not be defea ted

merely . on bas i s of con jec tu re or surmise" ( c i t ing

v. Maffucci 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d r . 1991)) . Rather ,

PIa i f f bears the burden to produce af f i rmat ive evidence

warran t i an adverse infe rence to cont rover t Bow Wow's

dec ra t ion . I s l and So er Servo Inc. v. Microso

Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 262 (2d Cir . 2005).

Poindexter purpor t s to i fy conf l i c t ing

s ta tements in Bow Wow's ara t ion . In par t i ar , PIa i f f

compares Cash Money's (accura te) s ta tement in i t s opening br i e f

t ha t i t was Bow Wow and not Cash Money, who crea ted , s e l f -

re leased and s e l f s t r i b u t e d "Green Light 3" and i t s recording

S t i l l Bal l in (Def. Br. 11-12) with Bow Wow's s ta tement in s

dec la ra t ion t ha t Crack Beatz crea the r ly ing musical bed

for , and produced, S t i l l Bal l in (Moss DecL If 6). (See PI. Br.

12-13). These s ta tements , however, do not c onf l i c t but descr ibe

a music product ion arrangement , whereby Crack Beatz suppl ied the

underly ing music and produced the t r ack , and Bow Wow rapped

h is l y r i c sover

t h a t music to crea te ,and then

r e lease , the

f ina l t r ack . (Moss DecL If If 3, 6 see a l so Note, What 's In A

Song? Copyr igh t ' s Un r Treatment Of Record Producers And S

Musi ans, 61 Vand. L Rev. 1235, 1237 (2008) (observi t ha t

23




[ r ] ecord producers of ten crea te or inf luence t ins t rumenta l

par t s played by recording a r t i s t s , and . . implement sound

manipulat ion techniques the recording s tud io t h a t give a

recorded composit ion s unique charac te r ) .

Poindexter a l so contends t h a t Cash Money's opening

br i e f con t ra c t s ow Wow's dec la ra t ion because Bow Wow

de t ha t he was t o t a l l y respons ib le for the i n f ngement as

Cash Money sa id . (Pl . Br. 12-13). Cash Money summarized ow

Wow's own test imony t t he, not Ca Money, crea ted ,

d i s t r ibu ted and re leased "Green Light 3" and the recording

S t i l l Bal l in . (Def. Br. 11-12). There are no incons i s tenc ies

in ow Wow's dec ra t ion .

P l a i n t i f f a lso asse r t s t ha t ow Wow l a ra t ion i s not

c red ib le because it lacks proven evidence support [of] the

c r e d i b i l i t y of it. (Pl. Br. 11). However, Cash Money i s not

requ i red to bo l s t e r i t s own witness ' s tes t imony with add i t iona l

cor robora t ing evidence. Rather , it i s Poindex te r ' s burden to

producesp e c i f i c

s"t ha t

putthe w n e s s ' s c red i b i l i t y in

i ssue so as to p rec l summary judgment ." Charles Alan Wright

e t a l . , lOA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2726 (3d ed. Apri l 2013).

Pl a i n t i f f has submit ted only his [uJnsupport a l l t ions t ha t

24




c r e d i b i l i t y i s in i s sue , which wil l not s u f f i c e . r d . ; see

a lso Crawford-El v. Br i t ton , 523 U.S. 574, 600 (1998) (holding

t h a t i f the [defendant has made a proper ly supported [summary

judgment] motion, the p l a i n t i f f may not respond simply wi th

genera l a t tacks upon t de ' s c r e d i b i l i t y , but r a the r

must i den t i fy a f f i rma t ive evidence from which a j u ry cou f ind

t ha t the p l a i n t i f f has car ed s or her burden ( footnote

omit ted)) ; McCull ndanch Union Free Sch. Dist . 187

F.3d 272, 280 (2d Cir.1999) (p l a i n t i f f does not crea te an i ssue

of fac t merely by impugning [a wi tness ' ] honesty ) ; Zi to v.

Fried , Frank, Harr i s , Shr iver Jacobson, LLP, 869 F. Supp. 2d

378, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ( Nei ther conclusory as s e r t i o n s , nor

content ions t h a t the a f f ida v i t s suppor t ing the motion are not

c red ib le , crea te a genuine i ssue of mate r i a l f a c t . (c i t a t ions

omit ted)) . Because Poindexter points to no spec i f i c c t s

put t ing c r e d i b i l i t y of ow Wow's dec la ra t ion in i s sue ,

cannot withs tand summary judgment .

P l a i n t i f f ' s oppos i t ion has f a i l e d to c rea te a genuine

i ssue of f ac t as to Cash Money's involvement with the a l l eged

in f r ingement . P l a i n t i f f asse r ted in h is b r i e f t h a t t sound

record ing was re lease[d] and exp lo i t ed in a l l manners on t

Cash Money l a be l . (Pl . Br. 4) . This i s unsuppor ted by the

25




record , and Pl a i n t i f f ' s own Complaint mentions only e x p l o i t a t i o n

through a l l eged f ree downloads" on t he In t e rne t . (Compl. 4;

id . 7 (mentioning only s t r i bu t i on "on i n t e rne t downloads")) .

P l a i n t i f f ' s a s se r t i o n t ha t ['Still B a l l i n ' ] was l l ly

al lowed to be expl ted by Cash Money (and still i s ) , Br.

11), i s a l so unsupport

P l a i n t i f f has at tached va r ious unau then t i ca ted

documents to h is unsigned af f i rmat ion . (Poindexter Aff . a t 1 2) .

For example, Exhibi t A to the af f i rmat con ta ins what he

c la ims are covers o f t h ree ow Wow mixtapes , Green Light 3, 4

and 5, which appear to have been pos ted (by anonymous sources)

wi th what looks I i Cash Money logos . (See Br. 3 (a l l eg i

t ha t the Green Light mixtapes are "a s e r i e s o f albums a l l

re leased on the Cash Money Record l abe l ) ) . But the Green ght

3 cover adds nothing to t he record, Green Light 4 and 5 have

nothing to do with P l a i n t i f f ' s aim. presence o f Cash

Money's logo i s i n su f f i e n t to e s t a b l i s h t ha t Cash Money

re sed t ha t work. Cash Money has submit ted an add i t iona l

de a ra t ion , evidencing t ha t Cash Money had nothing to do with

any album in ow Wow's Greenl ight s e r i e s . (See Decla ra t ion of

Shad Gregory Moss, October 11, 2013, a t 2-5) . P i n t i f f ' s

unauthent ica ted sc reenshots il to c rea te a genuine i s sue of

26




fac t as to Cash Money's involvement with S t i l l Bal l in , and do

not withs tand summary judgment.

The press repor t s a t tached as Exhibi t E to the e f

t Cash Money was sued regard ing other worKs t ha t t did , in

r e lease , do not prove t ha t Cash Money re l ea sed the album

in ques t ion here .

Given the evidence shows the named Defendant t h i s

ac t ion had no involvement with the a l l eged in ngement,

Defendant ' s motion fo r summary judgment i s gran ted .

Conclusion

Given t reasoning above, Defendant ' s motion to

dismiss and motion fo r summa judgment i s granted in favor of

Cash Money.

ew York Y

February l:J- 2 14

27


poindexter v. cash money - bow wow copyright infringement opinion

Documents