Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Noel Redding Estate Ltd
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-00443
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Experience Hendrix v. Noel Redding Estate, Judge Abrams allowed limited discovery before deciding defendants’ challenge to the court’s authority over them.
Experience Hendrix, LLC, Authentic Hendrix, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, Noel Redding Estate Ltd, and Mitch Mitchell Estate Ltd.
What happened
In Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Noel Redding Estate Ltd., the defendants asked the court to dismiss the case because it lacked personal jurisdiction—the authority to exercise power over them. The plaintiffs opposed dismissal and alternatively requested discovery about jurisdiction.
At a May 4, 2022 conference, the plaintiffs said the discovery would be limited. The court found that they had shown enough to justify limited jurisdictional discovery and directed the parties to meet and discuss boundaries that would reduce expense and delay.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide the motion to dismiss. Instead, she ordered the parties to submit a joint status letter by June 17, 2022, describing the agreed discovery parameters.
The detailed version
- Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Noel Redding Estate Ltd · No. 1:22-cv-00443
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 18, 2022
Background
Defendants Noel Redding Estate Ltd and Mitch Mitchell Estate Ltd moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to exercise power over a particular defendant. Plaintiffs Experience Hendrix, LLC, Authentic Hendrix, LLC, and Sony Music Entertainment opposed the motion or, alternatively, requested jurisdictional discovery.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing to justify limited discovery. It relied on the principle that a federal court may allow limited discovery concerning personal jurisdiction when a plaintiff has made an initial showing supporting jurisdiction and shown that its position is not frivolous. At a May 4, 2022 conference, plaintiffs said the discovery would be limited in scope.
Ruling
The court did not rule on whether it had personal jurisdiction or whether the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted. Instead, it directed the parties to meet and confer about the limits of jurisdictional discovery in order to minimize expense and delay. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status letter no later than June 17, 2022.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.