Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 10, 2020

Schwartzwald v. Oath Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-09938
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Intellectual PropertyMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Schwartzwald v. Oath Inc., Judge Abrams held Oath’s use of the Photograph fair use and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.

Who this affects

Lawrence Schwartzwald’s claims against Oath, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Schwartzwald v. Oath Inc., Lawrence Schwartzwald sued Oath, Inc. over Oath’s use of a photograph.

The court held that Oath’s use of the photograph was fair use and granted Oath’s motion to dismiss. The court also stated that Schwartzwald had already amended his complaint once and had not shown that additional allegations could change the result.

Judge Abrams’s ruling dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice, meaning the dismissal barred refiling that complaint, and the case was closed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Schwartzwald v. Oath Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09938
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 10, 2020

Background

The judgment identifies Lawrence Schwartzwald as the plaintiff and Oath, Inc. as the defendant. It concerns Oath’s use of a photograph.

Ruling

The court held that Oath’s use of the photograph constituted fair use. It therefore granted Oath’s motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court stated that Schwartzwald had already amended his complaint once in response to Oath’s initial motion to dismiss. Because there was no indication that he could or would provide additional allegations leading to a different result, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice and closed the case. Judge Ronnie Abrams is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself refers to the reasons stated in a separate Opinion and Order dated September 10, 2020, which was not provided.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.