United States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-03973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In United States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Judge Subramanian denied LIVE-Fi’s motion to join the antitrust case and said it could file its own case against defendants.
LIVE-Fi Technology Holdings, LLC was denied permission to join the case as a plaintiff, but the court stated that it could file its own case against the defendants. The existing plaintiffs and defendants remain parties to the underlying action.
What happened
United States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is an antitrust case brought by the United States and other plaintiffs against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and other defendants. LIVE-Fi Technology Holdings, LLC, which was not a party, asked to join as a plaintiff.
LIVE-Fi argued that it had interests in the case that were not adequately represented. Its filing described alleged patent infringement, unfair competition, and other conduct involving Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and it sought either required or optional joinder under the federal rules governing when additional parties may be added.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied LIVE-Fi’s motion for the reasons stated in letters filed by the existing plaintiffs and defendants. The court said LIVE-Fi could file its own case against the defendants if it wished to do so.
The detailed version
- United States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03973
- Subramanian
- Aug. 22, 2025
Background
The underlying case is an antitrust action brought by the United States and 29 plaintiff states against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Live Nation, Inc., Ticketmaster LLC, and other defendants, according to the motion. The opinion excerpt does not describe the underlying case’s claims or the parties’ responses in detail.
LIVE-Fi Technology Holdings, LLC, a nonparty, filed a motion seeking mandatory joinder or, alternatively, permissive joinder as a plaintiff under Rules 19 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mandatory joinder concerns adding a person whose absence may prevent complete relief or impair that person’s ability to protect an interest. Permissive joinder allows a court to add a party when the legal and factual issues are sufficiently connected.
LIVE-Fi’s Position
LIVE-Fi asserted that its interests were not adequately represented by the named plaintiffs. The filing described alleged violations involving Live Nation and Ticketmaster, including alleged violations of a 2010 consent decree and competitive impact statement, alleged misuse of LIVE-Fi’s patents, and alleged unfair competition. The filing also requested permission for Amy Weissbrod Gurvey to appear as counsel and asked the court to correct docket entries that LIVE-Fi said incorrectly identified it as an alternative-dispute-resolution provider and listed an incorrect email address.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion. The ruling states that the denial was for the reasons given in letters filed by both the plaintiffs and defendants at docket entries 632 and 633. The court further stated that LIVE-Fi could file its own case against the defendants if it wished to do so. The excerpt does not provide the reasoning in those letters or separately state the disposition of each additional request in LIVE-Fi’s motion.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on whether a nonparty could join an existing lawsuit and did not decide the underlying antitrust, patent, or unfair-competition allegations.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.