Shull v. Sorkin

Background

Denise K. Shull and The ReThink Group, Inc. sued Andrew Ross Sorkin, Brian Koppelman, David Levien, David Nevins, TBTF Productions, Inc., Showtime Networks, Inc., and CBS Corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants improperly used or copied their copyrighted work, Market Mind Games, and used Shull’s style and persona without permission or payment. The complaint asserted claims under the Copyright Act, the federal trademark statute, New York civil-rights and business laws, an implied agreement, and unjust enrichment.

The defendants previously moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. On October 4, 2019, the court granted that motion as to the copyright-infringement and state-law claims and denied the defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. A judgment was entered afterward.

Plaintiffs’ Requests

The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider and vacate the October 4, 2019 decision, vacate the related judgment, allow them to amend the complaint, and send the state-law claims to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Reconsideration and Relief from Judgment

The court applied the standards for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. Rule 60(b) likewise requires exceptional circumstances and cannot be used simply to relitigate issues already decided.

The plaintiffs argued that the court had relied on facts outside the complaint and had improperly used information from an internet search. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that the cited material supplemented information in the complaint and that the internet-search results only confirmed information and evidence the plaintiffs themselves had presented. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that it had overlooked evidence or misapplied copyright law, finding that they were repeating arguments the court had already considered and rejected.

Leave to Amend

The court denied leave to amend. Because the plaintiffs requested amendment only after final judgment, they first had to obtain relief from that judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting that relief. It also noted that the plaintiffs had not moved to amend while opposing the original dismissal motion, had not initially provided a proposed amended complaint, and ultimately proposed allegations that were either futile or new claims presented for the first time.

Request to Send State Claims to State Court

The court denied the request to send the state-law claims to state court. It explained that its earlier decision had not declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims; instead, it had ruled that the claims failed as a matter of law because the plaintiffs had not established a fiduciary relationship between Shull and the defendants.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the October 4, 2019 decision, denied reconsideration of that decision, denied leave to amend, and denied the request to send the state-law claims to state court. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.