London v. Sony Music Publishing
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-06647
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Sena London v. SONY MUSIC PUBLISHING, Judge Broderick ordered discussions about proper parties and corrected the plaintiff’s name.
Sena London and SONY MUSIC PUBLISHING, a subsidiary of Sony Corporation; the order also concerns identifying the proper parties and correcting the case caption.
What happened
In Sena London v. SONY MUSIC PUBLISHING, the court addressed the plaintiff’s name and the identification of the proper parties. The filing also opposed the defendant’s request for more time to respond, but the available order text does not clearly state how that request was resolved.
The court directed the parties to meet and discuss which parties should be named so that Sena London could amend the complaint. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to change the caption from “Sean London” to “Sena London.”
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on August 28, 2025. The available text does not show a ruling granting or denying the defendant’s requested extension of time.
The detailed version
- London v. Sony Music Publishing · No. 1:25-cv-06647
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 28, 2025
What the court addressed
The available opinion text contains an order directing the parties to meet and discuss the proper parties in the case. It states that this discussion would allow Sena London to amend the complaint.
The order also directs the Clerk of Court to correct the plaintiff’s name in the case caption to “Sena London.” The opinion text shows that the caption had listed the plaintiff as “Sean London.”
What the filing says
The included filing is Sena London’s opposition to the defendant’s request for a 30-day extension to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint. London proceeded without a lawyer and argued that the defendant already had information about the allegations. London also disputed the defendant’s assertion that the complaint named the wrong legal entity and requested information about the entities associated with individuals named in the complaint.
Those statements are arguments from London’s filing, not findings by the court. The available order text does not clearly state whether the request for an extension was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the parties to meet and discuss the proper parties so that the complaint could be amended, and directed the Clerk of Court to correct the plaintiff’s name. The available text does not state any additional disposition.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.