Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 27, 2024

Thomas v. Universal Music Group

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-10013
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Thomas v. Universal Music Group, Judge Broderick corrected defendants’ names and ordered Marshals Service for a pro se copyright case.

Who this affects

Caze D. Thomas and the defendants named in the action—Fenneas O’Connell, Billie Eilish, Interscope Records/Darkroom Records, Universal Music Group, and Universal Music Group Holding Company—were affected by the name corrections and service instructions.

What happened

In Thomas v. Universal Music Group, Caze D. Thomas, who was representing himself, alleged copyright infringement. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

The court corrected two defendants’ names: “Billy Eilish” was changed to Billie Eilish, and “Fenneas Eilish” was changed to Fenneas O’Connell. The court also ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and provide documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so the defendants could be served.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered these case-management steps but did not decide whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred. The order also stated that Thomas should request more time if service was not completed within 90 days after the summonses were issued.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Thomas v. Universal Music Group · No. 1:23-cv-10013
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Feb. 27, 2024

Background

Caze D. Thomas, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action alleging copyright infringement. The court had previously allowed Thomas to proceed without prepaying filing fees. This order addressed the defendants’ names and service of the complaint; it did not address the merits of the copyright allegations.

Correction of Defendants’ Names

Thomas identified singer and songwriter Billie Eilish as “Billy Eilish” in the complaint’s caption. Thomas also identified Billie Eilish’s brother, Fenneas O’Connell, as “Fenneas Eilish.” Because Thomas was proceeding without a lawyer and the court found that he clearly intended to sue Billie Eilish and Fenneas O’Connell, the Clerk of Court was directed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to substitute Billie Eilish for “Billy Eilish” and Fenneas O’Connell for “Fenneas Eilish.” The court stated that the substitutions did not prevent those defendants from asserting defenses.

Service of Process

Because Thomas was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was directed to complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Fenneas O’Connell, Billie Eilish, Interscope Records/Darkroom Records, Universal Music Group, and Universal Music Group Holding Company.

The court stated that if service was not completed within 90 days after the summonses were issued, Thomas should request an extension of time. The court also instructed Thomas to notify it in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the Clerk of Court to correct the two defendants’ names, issue summonses, complete the service forms, send the required documents to the U.S. Marshals Service, and mail Thomas an information package. The order did not rule on whether any defendant infringed copyright.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.