Elliott v. Cartagena

Background

On February 13, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss Elliott’s amended complaint. It dismissed Elliott’s ten state-law claims but declined to dismiss his four copyright claims. The court directed the parties to submit a discovery schedule and said that discovery should initially address a disputed “piece of paper” or “contract” and the related $5,000 payment.

Elliott then moved under Local Rule 6.3 for partial reconsideration. He sought reinstatement of his negligence claim, fraud or negligent-misrepresentation claim, and civil-conspiracy claim. He also requested permission to amend his amended complaint and argued that the court’s discovery guidance conflicted with governing law.

Legal standard

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and is generally not a way to repeat arguments, present new theories that could have been raised earlier, or obtain a second opportunity to argue the case. Reconsideration generally requires overlooked controlling law or facts, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice.

Negligence claim

The court declined to reinstate the negligence claim. It had previously dismissed that claim as preempted by the Copyright Act. Elliott argued that the claim sought damages for career harm and failure to credit him, rather than damages for unauthorized duplication of the song.

The court found that this description conflicted with allegations in the amended complaint and Elliott’s earlier arguments. Those materials sought compensation and profits connected to defendants’ alleged exploitation of the song without credit or compensation. The court further held that even if the claim were treated as seeking only credit-related or career-related harm, it still concerned defendants’ reproduction and display of the song without credit and asserted rights equivalent to copyright rights. The court therefore continued to regard the claim as preempted. It also found that Elliott had not identified controlling authority presented earlier that the court had overlooked.

Fraud or negligent-misrepresentation claim

The court declined to reinstate the fraud or negligent-misrepresentation claim. The earlier dismissal applied to seven defendants because Elliott had not separately described the acts attributed to each defendant. The claim against Joseph Anthony Cartagena, also identified as Fat Joe, was dismissed because the alleged future promises were not actionable fraud, and because the court found additional pleading and statute-of-frauds problems.

The court rejected Elliott’s argument that it had dismissed the claims against the other defendants without notice, finding that the defendants had raised the issue in their motion-to-dismiss briefing and that Elliott had responded to it. The court also found that Elliott’s arguments about future promises repeated arguments previously made and therefore did not justify reconsideration.

The court withdrew its prior finding that Elliott had failed to allege Cartagena’s intent when the statements were made. It stated, however, that withdrawing that finding did not change the bottom-line conclusion that the fraud claims were insufficiently pleaded. The court also held that its discussion of the statute of frauds was not an improper basis for reconsideration and that the alleged agreement was covered by that doctrine. The court relied in part on allegations that Elliott signed a document after Cartagena’s representations in exchange for $5,000.

Civil-conspiracy claim

The court declined to reinstate the civil-conspiracy claim. It had previously dismissed the claim as preempted by the Copyright Act and independently held that it failed because the alleged underlying tort claims had been dismissed.

Elliott challenged the court’s use of New York law and argued that Florida law recognized civil conspiracy. The court found that Elliott had not identified controlling authority requiring application of Florida law. It further held that even if Florida law applied, neither Florida nor New York recognized an independent civil-conspiracy claim without an underlying tort. The court therefore concluded that dismissal remained appropriate.

Request to amend

The court denied Elliott’s request for permission to amend his amended complaint. Elliott had previously received defendants’ pre-motion letters describing the alleged deficiencies and had been given an opportunity to address them in an amended complaint. The court found that Elliott had not explained why another amendment was warranted after that opportunity.

Discovery guidance

The court clarified that its earlier statement about focusing initially on the “piece of paper,” the “contract,” and the $5,000 payment did not limit discovery exclusively to those issues. The court said the disputed document and whether it assigned away Elliott’s rights could be potentially decisive, so the parties should account for that issue in their discovery schedule, including by considering earlier depositions of Elliott and Cartagena. The court stated that discovery was not limited to that issue.

Because the court had already issued a letter clarifying the discovery guidance, it found no need to respond further to Elliott’s later disagreement or to his petition for a writ of mandamus. The opinion does not decide that petition.

Disposition

For these reasons, the court denied Elliott’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 231. The order was issued by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.