Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 22, 2024

McDermott v. This Dog's Life Corp

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:23-cv-05869
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Intellectual PropertyCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In McDermott v. This Dog’s Life Corp., Judge Engelmayer denied dismissal of McDermott’s copyright claim as time-barred.

Who this affects

Matthew McDermott’s copyright claim was not dismissed at this stage; This Dog’s Life Corp. must answer the amended complaint by May 6, 2024.

What happened

In McDermott v. This Dog’s Life Corp., Matthew McDermott alleged that This Dog’s Life Corp. displayed his copyrighted photograph on its website without permission, violating the Copyright Act.

This Dog’s Life Corp. asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claim was filed too late under the applicable deadline. A magistrate judge recommended denying that request, and neither party objected.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error, adopted it in full, and denied the motion to dismiss. The defendant must answer the amended complaint by May 6, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
McDermott v. This Dog's Life Corp · No. 1:23-cv-05869
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Apr. 22, 2024

Background

Matthew McDermott’s amended complaint alleged that This Dog’s Life Corp. violated the Copyright Act by displaying McDermott’s copyrighted photograph on its website without permission.

Motion to Dismiss

This Dog’s Life Corp. moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The company argued that McDermott’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, meaning the deadline for bringing the claim.

The court had referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. Judge Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the motion be denied. The parties did not submit objections by the April 18, 2024 deadline.

Court’s Analysis

Because no party objected, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court found no such error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The opinion also states that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review.

Disposition

The court denied This Dog’s Life Corp.’s motion to dismiss. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), the defendant must answer the amended complaint by May 6, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.