Thomas v. Universal Music Group
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-10013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Thomas v. Universal Music Group, Judge Broderick denied defendants’ request to make Thomas’s voluntary dismissal final because the court lacked power to hear the case.
Caze D. Thomas’s voluntary dismissal of Case No. 23-CV-10013 remained without prejudice, while the defendants’ request to make it with prejudice was denied. The court closed that case and did not rule on the separate Bieber action.
What happened
In Thomas v. Universal Music Group, Caze D. Thomas voluntarily dismissed his copyright case before any defendant filed an answer or a summary-judgment motion. The case had been consolidated with a separate action involving Justin Bieber and Universal Music Group.
The defendants asked the court to treat Thomas’s dismissal as an adjudication on the merits under the federal rule known as the “two-dismissal rule,” based on Thomas’s earlier dismissal of a related case. Thomas represented himself.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the request because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning it lacked authority to decide the issue. The court stated that Thomas’s notice had already automatically ended this action without prejudice, closed Case No. 23-CV-10013, and did not decide whether the two-dismissal rule applied or whether anything was dismissed in the Bieber action.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Universal Music Group · No. 1:23-cv-10013
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 21, 2024
Background
Caze D. Thomas, appearing without a lawyer, brought a copyright-infringement action concerning the song “Therefore I Am” against Fenneas O’Connell, Billie Eilish, Interscope Records/Darkroom Records, Universal Music Group, and Universal Music Group Holding Company. Thomas later sought to add Justin Bieber based on copyright allegations concerning “Peaches” and filed a separate action against Bieber and Universal Music Group involving the same allegations. The court consolidated that action with this one.
Before any defendant served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Thomas filed a notice voluntarily dismissing this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The defendants then asked the court to make the dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). They argued that Thomas’s earlier voluntary dismissal of a related action meant that this later dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits under the rule commonly called the “two-dismissal rule.”
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a notice of dismissal filed before an answer or summary-judgment motion automatically ends the lawsuit. Unless the notice says otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. The court also explained that subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to decide a case, and that a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and requires dismissal.
The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore lacked authority to decide whether Thomas’s notice should operate as an adjudication on the merits. It further stated that the district court handling any future action would be able to decide that question if necessary. The opinion did not decide whether any claims or defendants in the Bieber action were dismissed.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the action with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion to dismiss, close Case No. 23-CV-10013, and mail the order to Thomas. The court did not add “with prejudice” to the voluntary dismissal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.