Ningob Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD v. Does 1-200
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:19-cv-06655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ningbo Mizhihe I&E Co. v. Does 1-200, Judge Hellerstein denied defendants’ late motion to reconsider dismissal of their counterclaims.
Deng Kai, Dreshow, and 4Memorys were affected directly because their motion for reconsideration was denied. Ningbo Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD’s earlier dismissal of those defendants’ counterclaims remained in place, while the rest of the action continued.
What happened
Ningbo Mizhihe I&E Co., Ltd. sued over alleged infringement of copyrighted unicorn images. The court had previously dismissed counterclaims brought by Deng Kai, Dreshow, and 4Memorys, while allowing the rest of the case to continue.
Those defendants asked the court to reconsider, arguing that it overlooked statements about copyright ownership, allegations about prior unicorn designs, and claims about images included in a takedown notice. They also sought clarification about their trademark-law and related state-law claims.
Judge Hellerstein denied the motion. He ruled that it was filed after the applicable deadline, that the rule invoked by defendants did not apply to the earlier partial order, and that the motion identified no controlling authority or information the court had overlooked.
The detailed version
- Ningob Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD v. Does 1-200 · No. 1:19-cv-06655
- Alvin Hellerstein
- June 19, 2020
Background
Ningbo Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD brought a copyright-infringement action alleging that the defendants created, marketed, and sold products depicting unicorn images for which Ningbo held enforceable copyrights. On April 30, 2020, the court granted Ningbo’s motion to dismiss counterclaims brought by Deng Kai, Dreshow, and 4Memorys. That earlier order dismissed only those counterclaims and left the rest of the action to proceed.
Arguments for Reconsideration
Deng Kai, Dreshow, and 4Memorys moved for reconsideration. They argued that the court had overlooked allegations or issues concerning: (1) Ningbo’s statement to Amazon that it held an enforceable copyright; (2) allegations that Ningbo knew about earlier unicorn designs; and (3) an assertion that Ningbo’s takedown notice covered some images not protected by Ningbo’s copyrights. They also sought clarification concerning their claims under the Lanham Act, a federal trademark statute, and related state law.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the motion was untimely under Local Civil Rule 6.3. The April 30 order was issued on April 30, making May 14 the deadline for a reconsideration motion under that rule. The defendants filed their motion on May 28 and did not explain why they missed the deadline.
The defendants instead relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which permits certain motions within 28 days after a judgment. The court held that Rule 59 did not apply because the April 30 order dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims but did not end the entire action. The order therefore was not a final judgment for purposes of that rule.
The court also ruled that the motion would fail even if it had been timely. Reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked. The court stated that its earlier order had already addressed the copyright-enforceability and knowledge allegations, that the argument about the takedown notice was not included in the defendants’ counterclaims, and that parties cannot add claims through arguments made only in briefs. The court further stated that it had specifically considered and rejected the defendants’ Lanham Act and related state-law claims. It explained that the defendants could pursue copyright-invalidity arguments as a defense to liability, but not as counterclaims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Disposition
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk to close the motion. The court scheduled a further status conference and stated that the parties would discuss how to move the litigation forward.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.