Johnson v. Giles

Background

Bryan Nathaniel Johnson, a songwriter and music producer, sued Cameron Giles concerning musical compositions used in Giles’s songs “Touch It Or Not” and “Triple Up,” and later compositions called “Horny Horns,” “Reflection Eternal,” “Prime Minister,” and “Critics.” Johnson alleged that Giles used the earlier compositions, failed to pay royalties and provide producer and songwriter credit, and did not amend the copyright registrations. Johnson also alleged that Giles used the later compositions in songs released in 2017, 2022, and 2023.

The First Amended Complaint asserted claims for breach of an alleged 2008 oral agreement, breach of an alleged written agreement, unjust enrichment, an accounting of royalties, and copyright infringement. Giles moved to dismiss the oral-agreement claim, the written-agreement claim, the unjust-enrichment claim, the accounting claim, and the infringement claims involving “Horny Horns” and “Reflection Eternal.” He did not move to dismiss the infringement claims involving “Prime Minister” and “Critics.”

Rulings on the Claims

Oral agreement

The court dismissed the claim based on the alleged 2008 oral agreement in its entirety. Under New York law, Johnson had to allege the agreement’s terms and a breach of those terms. The court found that Johnson alleged only that Giles orally acknowledged Johnson’s contributions and ownership rights, agreed to an accounting and payment of unpaid royalties, and received a license in exchange. Johnson instead alleged that Giles breached additional terms—such as paying 50 percent of future royalties, providing future credit, and amending copyright registrations—that Johnson attributed to the later written agreement.

The court also ruled that, assuming the oral agreement included promises concerning future royalties and future credit, those promises were barred by New York’s Statute of Frauds because they involved performance extending indefinitely beyond one year and depended on third parties. The alleged promise to amend the copyright registrations was not subject to that rule, but the court stated that Johnson’s claim concerning that promise was barred by the statute of limitations. The court further noted that Johnson described the oral agreement as a settlement and alleged that the parties later reduced their agreement to writing, which created additional problems for enforcing the oral agreement.

Written agreement

The court granted the motion to dismiss the written-agreement claim to the extent it was based on Giles’s alleged promise to amend the copyrights for “Touch It Or Not” and “Triple Up.” Johnson did not respond to Giles’s argument that this part of the claim was time-barred, which the court treated as an effective concession. The court also stated that, based on the allegations, the promise could have been performed within a reasonable time and that waiting approximately fifteen years to sue exceeded New York’s six-year limitations period for contract claims.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the written-agreement claim to the extent it concerned unpaid royalties and missing producer or songwriter credit for new distributions of “Touch It Or Not” and “Triple Up” occurring within the six years before Johnson filed the action. The court applied the continuing-breach principle, under which a new breach of a contract requiring continuing performance may start a new limitations period. The court found that Johnson adequately alleged a written agreement, his own performance by granting Giles a license, Giles’s failure to direct payment of royalties and provide credit, and resulting damages. Johnson was not required at the pleading stage to attach the alleged written agreement or plead its terms word for word.

Unjust enrichment and accounting

The court denied the motion to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim. Because the parties disputed whether a valid written agreement existed, Johnson could plead unjust enrichment as an alternative theory. The court found that the complaint and its other factual allegations plausibly claimed that Giles benefited at Johnson’s expense, even though the unjust-enrichment allegations themselves were brief.

The court also denied the motion to dismiss the accounting claim. An accounting is an equitable remedy requiring disclosure and calculation of amounts allegedly owed. The court held that Johnson plausibly alleged that he and Giles were co-authors and co-owners of “Touch It Or Not” and “Triple Up,” and that co-owners of a joint work owe each other a duty to account.

Copyright infringement claims

The court dismissed Johnson’s infringement claims involving “Horny Horns” and “Reflection Eternal.” The copyright registrations attached to the First Amended Complaint identified Johnson as the author but identified Hebrew Hustle as the copyright claimant and stated that ownership had been transferred by written agreement. The court concluded that the registrations showed that Johnson had transferred all ownership rights, including the right to prosecute infringement claims, to Hebrew Hustle. Because Hebrew Hustle was not a plaintiff, Johnson could not prosecute those claims.

The court did not dismiss the infringement claims involving “Prime Minister” and “Critics” because Giles did not move to dismiss them. Those claims therefore remained in the case at this stage.

Other Orders and Disposition

The court denied Johnson’s motion to strike Giles’s late reply brief. Giles had attempted to file the reply by the deadline but made a filing error, and the court found that striking the submission would be too extreme a remedy.

The court stated that the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. It ordered Johnson to file a stipulation of voluntary dismissal concerning the entities named in the original complaint by September 26, 2024. It also ordered Giles to file an answer within 14 days and set December 7, 2024, as the deadline for completing fact discovery.