Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 15, 2024

Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C.

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:23-cv-05361
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Intellectual PropertyCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Schatz v. Binary Bits, Judge Engelmayer denied Binary Bits’ motion to dismiss the copyright lawsuit.

Who this affects

Binary Bits must answer the complaint by August 29, 2024; the plaintiffs’ copyright lawsuit was not dismissed at this stage.

What happened

In Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C., Howard Schatz and Beverly Ornstein alleged that Binary Bits displayed their copyrighted photograph on FriendsEAT.com without permission.

Binary Bits asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit because it was filed too late, or alternatively to limit the damages, costs, and attorney fees the plaintiffs could recover. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted that recommendation and denied the motion to dismiss. Binary Bits must answer the complaint by August 29, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C. · No. 1:23-cv-05361
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Aug. 15, 2024

Background

Howard Schatz and Beverly Ornstein brought a copyright lawsuit against Binary Bits LLC, doing business as FriendsEAT.com. They alleged that Binary Bits displayed their copyrighted photograph on its website without permission.

Binary Bits moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the copyright claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In the alternative, Binary Bits sought to limit the attorney fees, damages, and costs that the plaintiffs could recover.

Court’s Review

The court had referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. Judge Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to dismiss be denied. No party filed objections.

Because there were no objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. He found no such error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The opinion does not independently describe the factual analysis in that report; instead, it incorporates the report’s factual summary by reference.

Ruling

Judge Engelmayer denied the motion to dismiss. Under the order, Binary Bits must answer the complaint by August 29, 2024. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object to the recommendation waived appellate review of those objections.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.