Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 18, 2020

Bayoh v. Afropunk Fest 2015 LLC

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:18-cv-05820
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Intellectual PropertyPreliminary InjunctionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mambu Bayoh v. Afropunk LLC, Judge Cote granted defendants’ motion to vacate a preliminary injunction and ordered judgment for defendants.

Who this affects

Mambu Bayoh and the defendants—Afropunk LLC, Matthew Morgan, and Jocelyn Cooper—were affected. The preliminary injunction was vacated, judgment was ordered for the defendants, and the case was closed.

What happened

Mambu Bayoh v. Afropunk LLC concerns photographs Bayoh provided for the 2015 Afropunk music festival after Afropunk paid him $1,200. Bayoh later claimed that the defendants infringed his copyright.

The court had issued a preliminary injunction in 2018 because the defendants had not appeared or opposed it at that time. After the court denied Bayoh’s request for a permanent injunction for lack of evidence of irreparable harm, the defendants asked the court to vacate the earlier injunction.

Judge Denise Cote granted the motion to vacate. She ruled that, because Bayoh had not shown irreparable harm, there was no longer a basis for the preliminary injunction, and she directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bayoh v. Afropunk Fest 2015 LLC · No. 1:18-cv-05820
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
Dec. 18, 2020

Background

In 2015, Afropunk paid Mambu Bayoh $1,200 for twenty-eight photographs that could be used in connection with the 2015 Afropunk music festival in Brooklyn, New York. The parties soon disputed the scope of the license Bayoh had granted.

Bayoh filed this copyright-infringement lawsuit on June 27, 2018, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The defendants had not appeared when Bayoh requested a preliminary injunction, and they did not oppose that request. On July 11, 2018, the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from infringing use, sale, or distribution of the photographs.

As the case neared its conclusion, the defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the preliminary injunction. The motion was filed on December 2, 2020.

Prior ruling on permanent relief

In a December 11, 2020 opinion, the court denied Bayoh’s request for a permanent injunction because he had produced no evidence that he had suffered, was suffering, or would suffer irreparable harm. The court also cancelled the non-jury trial that had been scheduled to address that request. The only remaining matter was the defendants’ motion to vacate the 2018 preliminary injunction.

Court’s reasoning

A preliminary injunction in a copyright case requires a showing that the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury without the injunction. Because the court had already found that Bayoh had presented no evidence of irreparable harm, it concluded that there was no longer a basis to find that he was likely to suffer such harm. The court therefore found it necessary and appropriate to vacate the preliminary injunction.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ December 2, 2020 motion to vacate the July 11, 2018 preliminary injunction. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.

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.