TufAmerica, Inc. v. Universal Music Publishing, Inc.
- 1:24-cv-02585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In TufAmerica v. Universal Music Publishing, the court granted dismissal with prejudice because amendment could not establish substantial similarity.
TufAmerica, Inc. and Universal Music Publishing, Inc.; the dismissal with prejudice ended the case and prevented refiling the dismissed case as stated in the judgment.
What happened
In TufAmerica, Inc. v. Universal Music Publishing, Inc., the defendant asked the court to dismiss the case. The judgment states that the court’s reasons were explained in an Opinion and Order dated September 23, 2025.
The court ruled that amendment would be futile because TufAmerica could not plead facts sufficient to establish substantial similarity between “Impeach the President” and “Real Love.”
The court granted Universal Music Publishing’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the case with prejudice, and closed the case. The judge is not identified in the provided text; the judgment was dated September 23, 2025.
The detailed version
- TufAmerica, Inc. v. Universal Music Publishing, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02585
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
The provided judgment concerns TufAmerica, Inc.’s case against Universal Music Publishing, Inc. The judgment states that the defendant moved to dismiss and that the court’s reasons were given in an Opinion and Order dated September 23, 2025.
Ruling
The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. It considered whether TufAmerica should be allowed to amend its pleading under Rule 15, which generally favors allowing amendments when justice requires. The court stated that amendment may be denied when it would be futile, meaning that the proposed amended complaint still could not survive a motion to dismiss.
The court found amendment futile because TufAmerica could not plead facts sufficient to establish “substantial similarity” between “Impeach the President” and “Real Love.”
Disposition
The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.