Kesten v. Broadcast Music, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-08909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kesten v. Broadcast Music, Judge Liman granted dismissal of all claims against ASCAP without prejudice and terminated ASCAP from the case.
Nadim Nimai Kesten and ASCAP Enterprises, also known as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. All claims against ASCAP were dismissed without prejudice; each party bears its own costs and fees, and ASCAP was terminated as a defendant.
What happened
In Kesten v. Broadcast Music, Inc., Nadim Nimai Kesten filed a notice seeking to voluntarily dismiss Defendant ASCAP Enterprises, also known as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.
The court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 addresses dismissal of actions rather than dismissal of parties. It treated the request as arising under another procedural rule or the court’s inherent authority.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted dismissal of all claims against ASCAP without prejudice, ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ASCAP as a defendant.
The detailed version
- Kesten v. Broadcast Music, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08909
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
Plaintiff Nadim Nimai Kesten filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Defendant ASCAP Enterprises, also known as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. The notice invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Rule 41 addresses dismissal of actions rather than dismissal of individual parties. It therefore treated the request as an application under Rule 15, Rule 21, or the court’s inherent authority.
Ruling
The court granted dismissal of all claims against ASCAP without prejudice. It ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ASCAP as a defendant. The order does not state a disposition of any claims against the other defendants.
Effect
ASCAP was removed from the case, but the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling the dismissed claims. The order did not decide the merits of those claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.