Scott v. Worldstarhiphop, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Nixon v. Source Dig.

    23 Civ. 5218 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2024)

    See Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases 6.A (requiring pre-motion letters to summarize “the basis for the anticipated motion”). Nixon's failure to comply with the Court's Individual Civil Rules provides an additional, independently sufficient basis to deny this portion of the Motion. See, e.g., Scott v. WorldStarHipHop, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 9538 (PKC), 2012 WL 1592229, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2012).

  2. Myeress v. Buzzfeed Inc.

    18-CV-2365 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Because the Amended Complaint does not demonstrate that Defendant lacked the requisite knowledge, that Defendant expeditiously removed the alleged infringing material upon obtaining such knowledge, that Defendant did not receive a financial benefit from the material, or that Defendant has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement, I find that Defendant is not, at this stage, entitled to DMCA protection under Section 512(c). See Scott v. WorldStarHipHop, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 9538(PKC)(RLE), 2012 WL 1592229, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2012) (denying a motion to dismiss where the amended complaint did not "make apparent [the defendant's] compliance with [the] various requirements [of Section 512(c)(1)"). Indeed, any one of those bases alone would be sufficient to deny Defendant's motion to dismiss.

  3. Inside Connect, Inc. v. Fischer

    No. 13-CV-1138 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 30, 2014)   Cited 17 times
    Finding the plaintiff's claims against current and former DOCCS employees to be barred the Eleventh Amendment

    Pre-motion letters are a procedural tool that I use to manage the litigation process; they are not a strategic device to prevent the court from deciding cases on the merits. Moreover, I agree with Defendants that the cases cited by Plaintiff in this regard, (see P's Opp. 12; Ds' Reply Mem. 1-3), are either distinguishable from the instant case, see Scott v. WorldStarHipHop, Inc., No. 10-CV-9538, 2012 WL 1592229, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2012) (denying motion for summary judgment without prejudice where party failed to comply with "Court's Individual Rules of Practice or the Local Rules of this District regarding motions for summary judgment"); Malmsteen v. Berdon, No. 05-CV-958, 2009 WL 1578615, at *2 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) (motion for default judgment denied because party failed to comply with individual rules and "did not show a basis for personal jurisdiction over [defendant]"), or support Defendants' position, see Five Star Dev. Resort Communities LLC v. iStar RC Paradise Valley LLC, No. 09-CV-2085, 2012 WL 1003557, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012) (defendant "was not required, when filing a preliminary pretrial statement pursuant to the [Judge's] Individual Rules of Practice . . . , to list with particularity each of its defenses at the risk of forfeiture of those defenses"). Finally, although I would let Plaintiff amend its complaint if the pre-motion letter did not mention a ground for dismissal that Plaintiff co