McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc.

Background

Shauna McKenzie-Morris, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc., V.P. Music Group, Inc., V.P. Record Distributors, LLC, V.P. Records of Brooklyn, LLC, Greensleeves Publishing, Ltd, and STB Music Inc. The opinion describes the defendants as record labels, distributors, and publishers. Her original claims included breach of contract, copyright infringement, fraud, and an accounting.

Earlier rulings dismissed the copyright, fraud, and accounting claims. Two summary-judgment rulings also narrowed the remaining contract claims based on provisions in the agreements and statutes of limitations. In the order being challenged, the court concluded that English law governs the 2007 Songwriter Agreement, that the agreement's incontestability provision is valid and enforceable under English law, and that the related claim is barred to the extent that provision applies. The court also held that the claim concerning registration of compositions under section 23 of that agreement is barred to the extent it concerns registrations or conduct outside the applicable six-year limitations period.

Motion for Reconsideration

McKenzie-Morris sought leave to file a motion asking the court to reconsider the recent summary-judgment order. Under the court's description of Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration is limited to matters or controlling decisions that the court overlooked. It is not a means to reargue issues, present new theories, or obtain a second hearing on the merits.

The court found that McKenzie-Morris had not identified any controlling decision, fact, or data that it had overlooked. Instead, the court found that she was trying to relitigate recently decided issues, amend her complaint through correspondence, or misconstrue the earlier order. The court therefore denied her application for leave to file a reconsideration motion.

Claims That Remain

The court summarized the remaining claims and theories as follows:

- Breach of the 2007 Recording Agreement based on unpaid royalties, to the extent the claim is not barred by the agreement's incontestability clause. - Breach of the 2007 Songwriter Agreement based on alleged unpaid royalties and failure to properly register compositions, to the extent the claims are not barred by the incontestability clause, the six-year statute of limitations, or another issue identified in an earlier order. - Breach of the 2014 Co-Publishing Agreement based on unpaid royalties, to the extent the claim is not barred by the agreement's incontestability clause.

The court stated that McKenzie-Morris may present at trial facts and issues relating to those remaining claims when they are not barred by an incontestability provision, a statute of limitations, or another issue addressed in an earlier order. Regarding the composition-registration claim, the court noted that the listed registrations appeared to have occurred before January 2016, but also noted that the list was described as non-exhaustive and therefore did not technically exclude challenges to registrations within the limitations period if supported by evidence produced during discovery.

New Theories and Licensing Allegations

McKenzie-Morris argued that the court had not addressed an alleged breach of section 3.1(a) of the 2007 Songwriter Agreement involving works created before that agreement was executed. The court ruled that this theory was not pleaded in the operative complaint and could not be added through briefing opposing summary judgment or through a reconsideration request.

She also continued to refer to two allegedly fraudulent and unauthorized licensing agreements involving her “Roots” and “Wrong Address” compositions. The court stated that these allegations appeared, at most, to concern claims that had already been dismissed. It further stated that the allegations did not relate to the remaining contract claims and appeared to be an attempt to plead new factual theories or claims. The court explained that allowing those theories would prejudice the defendants because the complaint had not given them notice of those claims.

Disposition

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke limited McKenzie-Morris to the contract claims and theories listed in the order and denied her letter-motion request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.