EMI April Music Inc. v. West
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-02127
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In EMI April Music v. West, Judge Caproni set a deadline for dismissal with prejudice after the parties reported an agreement resolving all issues.
The plaintiffs, EMI April Music Inc. and EMI Blackwood Music Inc., and the defendants, Kanye West and West Brands, LLC.
What happened
EMI April Music Inc. v. West involved EMI April Music Inc. and EMI Blackwood Music Inc. against Kanye West and West Brands, LLC. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It also set a process for ending the case based on the reported settlement.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, on February 14, 2020, unless a party filed a timely letter explaining why it should not be dismissed. The parties also had until February 7, 2020, to ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- EMI April Music Inc. v. West · No. 1:19-cv-02127
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
EMI April Music Inc. and EMI Blackwood Music Inc. sued Kanye West and West Brands, LLC, which the order identifies as also doing business as Ye World Publishing and Please Gimme My Publishing. On January 13, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s Order
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It ordered that the action would be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, on February 14, 2020, unless one or more parties filed a letter before that date requesting that the action not be dismissed and explaining why dismissal was inappropriate in light of the settlement. The order states that a request filed on or after February 14 could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request such an order by February 7, 2020, in accordance with Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices.
Disposition
This was a procedural order implementing the parties’ reported settlement and setting the terms and deadlines for dismissal. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.