Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-05361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Schatz v. Binary Bits, Judge Netburn ordered supplemental briefs on whether Nealy affects the pending motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs and Binary Bits LLC, because both sides must address whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Nealy affects the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Schatz v. Binary Bits LLC, the defendant asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case. Both sides relied on two earlier copyright decisions, Petrella and Sohm, in their written arguments.
The opinion states that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy clarified Petrella and overruled Sohm’s holding. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the defendant to file a supplemental letter brief by May 24, 2024, explaining whether Nealy affects its arguments. The plaintiffs may respond by May 31, 2024, and each brief may not exceed three pages.
The detailed version
- Schatz v. Binary Bits L.L.C. · No. 1:23-cv-05361
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 17, 2024
Background
The defendant’s motion to dismiss was pending before the court. In their briefing, both sides cited and discussed Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. and Sohm v. Scholastic Inc. The opinion states that, the previous week, the Supreme Court decided Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, clarified Petrella’s holding, and overruled Sohm’s holding.
Order
The court ordered the defendant to file a supplemental letter brief by May 24, 2024, explaining whether Nealy affects the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a response by May 31, 2024. Each supplemental letter brief may not exceed three pages. The order does not state a disposition of the motion to dismiss.
Effect
This was a procedural briefing order, not a decision on the merits of the parties’ dispute. Judge Sarah Netburn signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.