Baker v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

Background

Plaintiffs filed a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a judgment or order in specified circumstances. The opinion states that plaintiffs disputed the transfer of the case from the District of Arizona to the Southern District of New York. Defendants argued that plaintiffs had consented to the transfer of the entire case, including the claims against the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and the BMI defendants.

The motion was filed by G. Scott Sobel, who was not admitted to the Southern District of New York. His two motions seeking temporary permission to practice in the case, known as admission pro hac vice, were terminated as deficient and had not been corrected. The court also noted that Sobel filed a reply longer than the court’s ten-page limit and included allegations that defendants conspired with another attorney to murder plaintiffs’ prior counsel. The court said those allegations were irrelevant and, if untrue, could be subject to sanctions.

Reasons for Denial

The court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as frivolous, substantially for the reasons stated in defendants’ opposition. First, it held that Sobel’s lack of admission to the court’s bar was independently sufficient to deny the motion. Second, the court concluded that the record showed plaintiffs had consented to the transfer, provided that the entire case was transferred. Third, it stated that the Arizona court had authority to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) even without consent. The court further held that the motion improperly sought to relitigate issues already decided and that plaintiffs had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for the extraordinary relief available under Rule 60(b).

Order and Effect

The court denied the motion. It stayed the case until August 22, 2022. If plaintiffs had not obtained counsel authorized to practice in the court by the end of that period, Alexander C. Baker would be treated as representing himself, and the claims of Adam Bravery LLC would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court granted defendants permission to respond if Sobel filed another motion for temporary admission, with the response due within three days of that filing. It extended to August 29, 2022, the parties’ deadline to propose a briefing structure and schedule for defendants’ anticipated motions to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate Sobel as plaintiffs’ counsel and terminate ECF No. 61.