Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Apr. 27, 2020

Webber v. Dash

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:19-cv-00610
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Summary JudgmentIntellectual PropertyTortCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Webber v. Dash, Judge Liman denied Plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motions because disputed facts remained under the law-of-the-case doctrine.

Who this affects

Josh Webber and Muddy Water Pictures’ copyright and defamation claims against Damon Anthony Dash and Poppington LLC remain unresolved and were set for trial.

What happened

Webber v. Dash concerns Josh Webber and Muddy Water Pictures’ copyright and defamation claims involving the film “Dear Frank.” An earlier judge had denied Plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motions because the case involved disputed facts requiring a trial.

Plaintiffs later filed new summary-judgment motions addressing copyright ownership and authorship and defamation. The court held that the earlier denial remained controlling because no change in the facts or law justified reopening those issues.

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied both motions, directed the Clerk to close the related docket entries, and scheduled trial for August 10, 2020, with a pretrial conference on July 27, 2020.

The detailed version

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

Case
Webber v. Dash · No. 1:19-cv-00610
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
Apr. 27, 2020

Background

Plaintiffs Josh Webber and Muddy Water Pictures LLC sued Defendants Damon Anthony Dash and Poppington LLC over the film “Dear Frank.” The complaint alleged copyright infringement and defamation. The copyright dispute included whether Dash had an ownership or authorship interest in the Film. The defamation dispute concerned statements Dash allegedly published about the Film.

Chief Judge McMahon previously granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction but described the case as involving disputed facts. She later denied Plaintiffs’ first motions for summary judgment on defamation and on copyright ownership and authorship. Her order stated that the factual disputes would require a trial.

The Later Motions

Plaintiffs filed new motions for summary judgment on copyright ownership and authorship and on defamation. The opinion states that these were filed after Chief Judge McMahon had already denied the earlier motions.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, which is the general practice of not reopening an issue that an earlier ruling in the same case already decided. The court explained that Chief Judge McMahon had found genuine disputes of material fact in both summary-judgment matters. It found no change in the facts or law that would justify revisiting that decision and concluded that applying the doctrine would not unfairly prejudice either side.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motions for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Nos. 115 and 122. The court also ordered that trial begin on August 10, 2020, and set a pretrial conference for July 27, 2020, at 4:00 p.m.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.