Lixenberg v. Complex Media, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-00354
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lixenberg v. Complex Media, Judge Abrams denied Complex Media’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, after a Second Circuit copyright-limitations ruling.
Dana Ruth Lixenberg and Complex Media, Inc.; the case remained active after the court denied Complex Media’s pending motion to dismiss and lifted the stay.
What happened
In Lixenberg v. Complex Media, Inc., Complex Media asked the court to dismiss Dana Ruth Lixenberg’s second amended complaint. The court had paused that motion while an appeal in another copyright case was pending.
The Second Circuit later ruled that there is no special exception for experienced plaintiffs to the rule governing when a claim is discovered, and defendants still must plead and prove a statute-of-limitations defense. Complex Media’s motion relied in significant part on arguments that Lixenberg was an experienced litigator who should have known about the alleged copyright violation and that the discovery rule generally does not apply in copyright cases without fraud.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the pending motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. She lifted the stay, closed the pending motion, and ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 30, 2024, addressing the next steps, including whether Complex Media would file another motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Lixenberg v. Complex Media, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00354
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 19, 2024
Background
Complex Media had filed a motion to dismiss Dana Ruth Lixenberg’s second amended complaint. On November 28, 2023, the court stayed that motion while the Second Circuit considered an appeal in Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc. The motion was pending at ECF No. 38.
Effect of the Second Circuit Decision
On August 16, 2024, the Second Circuit held that there is no “sophisticated plaintiff” exception to the discovery rule or to a defendant’s burden to plead and prove a statute-of-limitations defense. The discovery rule concerns when a claim is treated as discovered for limitations purposes.
The court stated that Complex Media’s motion to dismiss was based in significant part on two theories: that Lixenberg was a seasoned litigator who should have known about the alleged copyright breach, and that the discovery rule does not apply in copyright cases unless there was fraud.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court denied Complex Media’s pending motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. It directed the parties to file a joint letter no later than August 30, 2024, updating the court about the next steps in the litigation and stating whether Complex Media would again move to dismiss the second amended complaint. If Complex Media planned another motion, the parties were required to include a proposed briefing schedule.
The court also directed the Clerk of Court to lift the stay and close the pending motion at ECF No. 38.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.