Greene v. Pete

Background

James A. Greene, proceeding without a lawyer, sought damages for alleged copyright infringement. He claimed that Megan Pete, Anthony White, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, 1501 Certified Entertainment, LLC, 300 Entertainment LLC, and Warner Music Group Corp. collectively copied his instrumental musical composition, “It’s About To Be On,” in recording, producing, and releasing the song “Savage.”

The defendants filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). The motions argued, among other things, that the complaint did not state a legally sufficient claim and that there were issues concerning service and personal jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a claim.

Registration issue

The Report distinguished between two registrations. Greene obtained a sound-recording registration for his recording on April 16, 2015. He obtained a performing-arts registration for the underlying musical composition on August 29, 2022, after he had filed this lawsuit. The song “Savage” had been released on March 6, 2020.

The Report concluded that, because Greene did not have the performing-arts registration when he filed the complaint, he could not pursue an infringement claim based on the underlying musical composition in this action. The Report stated that Greene was limited to claims that the defendants sampled or directly copied his sound recording, but that his complaint instead alleged infringement of the underlying composition. The required registration therefore had not been obtained before filing.

Review of the objections

Greene objected to the Report, arguing that the court should consider the registrations he obtained after filing and give him the benefit of the doubt. Judge Engelmayer found that the objections were not specific and clearly directed at particular findings in the Report. The court therefore reviewed the Report for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. It found no clear error and adopted the Report’s reasoning.

Claims against Knowles-Carter

The court separately considered the claims against Knowles-Carter, who had not appeared. Greene claimed that he had attempted, but failed, to serve her. The court noted that Greene had not requested an extension of the 90-day service period and that the record did not show good cause for the delay. The court also concluded that the same registration problem would ultimately defeat those claims. It therefore treated the recommendation for dismissal without prejudice as applying equally to the claims against Knowles-Carter.

Disposition

The court accepted and adopted Judge Netburn’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Greene’s complaint without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at docket numbers 19 and 30, mail Greene a copy of the decision, and close the case. The court stated that the dismissal allowed Greene an opportunity to bring another action with the registration and service deficiencies cured.