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 adopted summary judgment dismissing claims against three defendants, while ordering a response concerning two others.
Todd Lorenzo Johnson's Copyright Act claim in Count One was dismissed with prejudice as to UnitedMasters, LLC, Spotify USA, Inc., and Amazon Music, with judgment entered for those defendants. Believe Digital and TuneCore remained subject to a show-cause process rather than a final ruling in this order.
What happened
In Johnson v. UMG Recording, Inc., Todd Lorenzo Johnson sued under the Copyright Act. UnitedMasters, LLC and Spotify USA, Inc. asked the court to dismiss the case or grant summary judgment. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, denying permission to file an amended complaint, and dismissing the action with prejudice; the recommendation also addressed Amazon Music.
No party objected to the recommendation by the deadline. The district judge said he reviewed it independently and found it well reasoned. The court adopted the recommendation for UnitedMasters, Spotify, and Amazon Music. The order does not state the specific deficiencies in the complaint, referring instead to the reasons in the recommendation.
Judge John P. Cronan dismissed the action with prejudice against UnitedMasters, Spotify, and Amazon Music, denied leave to replead, and directed entry of judgment for those defendants on Count One, the Copyright Act claim. The court separately ordered Johnson to explain why summary judgment should not also be granted for Believe Digital and TuneCore; that issue was not resolved in this order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. UMG Recording, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03021
- John Cronan
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
Todd Lorenzo Johnson brought a claim under the Copyright Act of 1976. The complaint named several defendants. At the time of this order, UnitedMasters, LLC and Spotify USA, Inc. jointly sought dismissal and/or summary judgment. Amazon Music had been served but had not appeared.
A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on December 6, 2024. It recommended granting summary judgment, denying leave to replead, and dismissing the action with prejudice. It also concluded that the same deficiencies requiring dismissal of Johnson's claims against UnitedMasters and Spotify were equally fatal to the claims against Amazon Music, and recommended dismissal of those claims after giving Johnson notice and an opportunity to respond.
Several other defendants had previously been dismissed without prejudice, including UMG Recording Company, Arista Records LLC, iTunes, Deezer, Google Play, YouTube, and Tidel Pinata NFT. UMG Recordings, Inc. had also been dismissed without prejudice by stipulation. The order separately identifies Believe Digital and TuneCore as defendants that had not appeared.
Review of the Recommendation
The parties were advised that they had fourteen days to object to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed, so the parties waived the right to object or obtain appellate review under the authorities cited by the court. Despite that waiver, Judge Cronan conducted an independent review and found the recommendation well reasoned and well founded.
Ruling
The court adopted the recommendation to dismiss the action as to UnitedMasters, LLC, Spotify USA, Inc., and Amazon Music, and denied leave to replead. The court expressly dismissed the action with prejudice against those three defendants. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in their favor on Johnson's Copyright Act claim in Count One and to dismiss them from the action.
The court did not decide the claims against Believe Digital and TuneCore in this order. Instead, it ordered Johnson to show cause why summary judgment should not similarly be granted for those defendants and why his claims against them should not be dismissed. His response was due January 17, 2025. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Johnson, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.