Johnson v. UMG Recording, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-03021
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Johnson v. UMG Recording, Judge Cronan denied Defendants’ motion without prejudice because they failed to give pro se Plaintiff the required summary-judgment notice.
The ruling directly affected pro se Plaintiff Todd Lorenzo Johnson and Defendants Spotify USA, Inc. and United Masters, LLC. It denied Defendants’ motion without prejudice and allowed them to refile after proper notice and a new briefing schedule.
What happened
In Johnson v. UMG Recording, Inc., Defendants Spotify USA, Inc. and United Masters, LLC asked the court to dismiss one claim and grant summary judgment on another claim brought by pro se Plaintiff Todd Lorenzo Johnson.
The court found that Defendants had not initially given Johnson the notice and rule texts required when a represented party seeks summary judgment against someone without a lawyer. The court also found that Johnson’s response did not show he understood the nature and consequences of summary judgment, and that Defendants’ later notice came too late to fix the problem.
Judge John P. Cronan denied Defendants’ motion without prejudice for violating the notice rule, directed the parties to obtain a new briefing schedule from Judge Gary Stein, and stated that Defendants may refile both the summary-judgment and dismissal motions.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. UMG Recording, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03021
- John Cronan
- July 2, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Todd Lorenzo Johnson represented himself. Defendants Spotify USA, Inc. and United Masters, LLC moved to dismiss Johnson’s declaratory-judgment claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and sought summary judgment under Rule 56 on his copyright-infringement claim.
Because Johnson was proceeding without a lawyer, Local Civil Rule 56.2 required the represented defendants to serve a separate notice explaining the summary-judgment process and to provide the full texts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1. Judge Gary Stein, who had been assigned to prepare a report and recommendation on dispositive motions, directed Defendants to address whether they had provided that notice.
Defendants informed the court that they had no record of serving the required notice and said they were then serving Johnson with the notice, the rule texts, and their motion papers. The court explained that failing to provide the notice generally warrants denial of a summary-judgment motion unless the pro se party’s filings and the record clearly show that the party understood the nature and consequences of summary judgment.
Court’s Analysis
The court found nothing in the record showing that Johnson understood the summary-judgment process. His submission of an alleged “copyrights lease agreement” and his letter opposing the motion showed an intent to challenge the motion, but did not demonstrate the required understanding. The court also determined that Defendants’ belated notice did not cure the problem because briefing on the motion had closed nearly seven months earlier.
Disposition
The court denied Defendants’ motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 56.2. It directed the parties to Judge Stein for a briefing schedule concerning any renewed motion. The court stated that Defendants may refile both the summary-judgment and dismissal motions, and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 44.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.