Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Tufamerica, Inc.

Background

This case concerns ownership of six musical compositions authored or co-authored by George Clinton: “The Victor,” “Good Old Music,” “Let’s Make It Last,” “I’ll Wait,” “Can You Get To That,” and “The Goose (That Laid the Golden Egg).” Plaintiffs Bridgeport Music, Inc. and Westbound Records, Inc. sought declarations that Plaintiffs owned the compositions, that Defendants had no valid ownership claims, and that Plaintiffs had not infringed copyrights allegedly owned by Defendants.

Defendants TufAmerica, Inc. and Kay Lovelace Taylor asserted counterclaims seeking a declaration that TufAmerica owned the compositions, damages for copyright infringement, and an accounting of the alleged damages. Plaintiffs relied on agreements assigning rights from Clinton, his publishing company, and certain co-writers. Defendants relied in part on copyright registrations and rights associated with Revilot Records and the estate of LeBaron Taylor.

Prior Summary-Judgment Ruling

On July 26, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Defendants’ counterclaims, ruling that the counterclaims were time-barred. The Court otherwise denied Plaintiffs’ motion because material factual issues prevented a ruling as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claims.

Motion for Reconsideration

Defendants moved for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice based on matters already presented to the court.

Defendants argued that the Court overlooked or misunderstood facts about LeBaron Taylor’s knowledge of Westbound’s recordings, TufAmerica’s inquiry notice in 2011, and the expected waste of proceeding toward trial. The Court rejected these arguments. It held that Defendants had admitted Taylor played Westbound’s recordings as a radio disc jockey and could not use reconsideration to raise an argument that was available but not made during summary-judgment briefing. The Court also concluded that the 2011 circumstances—including Oliver’s lack of ownership paperwork, removal of ownership warranties from the agreement, the absence of a timely copyright-catalog search, the $6,500 purchase price for a 50% interest, and Fuchs’s music-industry experience—supported the earlier finding that TufAmerica was on notice that another party might claim ownership.

The Court further rejected Defendants’ argument that reconsideration was necessary to avoid wasting resources. It stated that the presence of material factual disputes concerning Plaintiffs’ claims did not permit the Court to refuse to apply the statute of limitations to Defendants’ counterclaims.

Interlocutory Appeal

Defendants also requested certification for an immediate, non-final appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court denied that request. It found that Defendants did not show that the order involved a controlling legal question with substantial disagreement about the answer, or that exceptional circumstances justified immediate appellate review. The Court also noted that reversal would not end the litigation because the case would then proceed to trial on ownership of the compositions.

Conditional Dismissal

Plaintiffs requested conditional dismissal of their claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and Defendants joined the request. The Court treated the request as a motion for voluntary dismissal. It found that the request was made shortly after the summary-judgment ruling, was not vexatious, would likely avoid duplicative litigation, and was supported by both sides’ stated desire to avoid trial while pursuing appellate review.

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request, subject to receiving an appropriate joint stipulation and order. The proposed stipulation was to provide that Plaintiffs’ claims would be dismissed with prejudice, except that they would instead have been dismissed without prejudice if the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling that Defendants’ counterclaims were time-barred. The parties were directed to file the proposed stipulation and order by September 12, 2023.

Disposition

The Court denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, denied their application for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal, and granted Plaintiffs’ request for conditional dismissal as described above. This order did not independently decide which party owns the compositions.