DArezzo v. Appel
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-00177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In D’Arezzo v. Appel, Judge Aaron ordered more briefing before deciding whether to convert defendants’ dismissal motion into a summary-judgment motion.
Angela D’Arezzo, Catherine Appel, and Overtime Dance Foundation, Inc.; the order set deadlines for further submissions on the defendants’ pending motion.
What happened
In D’Arezzo v. Appel, Catherine Appel and Overtime Dance Foundation, Inc. asked the court to dismiss Angela D’Arezzo’s complaint. They argued that her first and second claims were filed too late and submitted documents they wanted the court to consider.
The court explained that copyright claims generally must be filed within three years after they arise. It noted that authorship claims generally begin when the alleged author receives a clear denial of authorship. The court did not decide whether D’Arezzo’s claims were too late or whether the documents should be considered.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron gave D’Arezzo until April 27, 2023, to submit additional material, including material concerning whether the filing deadline should be extended for fairness. The defendants could reply by May 5, 2023. The order therefore addressed further briefing rather than finally deciding the dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- DArezzo v. Appel · No. 1:22-cv-00177
- Stewart Aaron
- Apr. 6, 2023
Background
Defendants Catherine Appel and Overtime Dance Foundation, Inc. moved under, among other provisions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They attached documents supporting their argument that Plaintiff Angela D’Arezzo’s first and second causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations, meaning that they were filed after the applicable deadline. The defendants alternatively asked the court to treat their dismissal motion as a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide claims based on the evidence rather than only the complaint and other permitted pleadings materials.
Legal framework
The court stated that civil actions under the Copyright Act generally must be brought within three years after the claim accrues. It explained that an ownership claim generally accrues when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been put on notice of the claim. An authorship claim follows a different rule: although an alleged author knows of the authorship claim from the work’s creation, the claim generally does not accrue until the alleged author receives an express repudiation of that claim. The court also referenced equitable tolling, a doctrine that may extend a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances.
Order
The court did not rule on whether the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, whether equitable tolling applied, or whether the motion should be converted to a summary-judgment motion. Instead, it gave D’Arezzo another opportunity to submit material relevant to the defendants’ motion, including material concerning equitable tolling. The order required D’Arezzo to submit that material by April 27, 2023, and required the defendants to file any reply by May 5, 2023. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered the order on April 6, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.