Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2025

Keep On Kicking Music, Inc v. Universal Music Group, Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:23-cv-04400
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Keep On Kicking Music v. UMG Recordings, Judge Moses requested more information before deciding whether to allow alternative service.

Who this affects

The Universal Defendants, third-party Jerry Duplessis, and other interested parties who might need notice of the action.

What happened

Keep On Kicking Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. involves a request by the Universal Defendants to serve third-party Jerry Duplessis by certified mail and email.

The court set July 2, 2025, as the deadline for any opposition and July 8, 2025, as the deadline for any reply. It also required the Universal Defendants to provide a declaration or other evidence supporting both proposed methods of service.

The order did not grant or deny the request. Judge Barbara Moses required the Universal Defendants to show that the proposed methods were reasonably likely to notify interested parties about the case and give them an opportunity to object.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Keep On Kicking Music, Inc v. Universal Music Group, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04400
Judge
James Oetken
Date
June 30, 2025

Background

The court reviewed the Universal Defendants’ letter-motion for permission to serve third-party Jerry Duplessis by certified mail and email. The opinion does not state whether those methods had already been attempted or provide additional facts about Duplessis’s location or availability.

Court’s Order

The court set July 2, 2025, as the deadline for opposition to the motion and July 8, 2025, as the deadline for a reply. By July 8, the Universal Defendants also had to submit a declaration or other appropriate evidence showing that each proposed method of alternative service was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to notify interested parties that the action was pending and give them an opportunity to present objections.

Disposition

The order did not grant or deny the motion for alternative service. It established briefing deadlines and required additional evidentiary support before the request would be decided. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.