UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

x
EMI ENTERTAINMENT WORLD, INC.,
Plaintiff,
05 Civ. 390 (LAP)
-against-
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
KAREN RECORDS, INC., KAREN
PUBLISHING INC., BIENVENIDO
RODRIGUEZ, ISABEL RODRIGUEZ and
FIDEL HERNANDEZ,
Defendants.
- X
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, after being granted partial summary judgment
[dkt. no. 90] in the above-referenced action, was awarded a
$100,000 judgment in its action against Defendants for copyright
infringement. See Memorandum and Order (Holwell, J.), Aug. 31,
2011 [dkt. no. 110] ("Judgment").) Defendants move to set aside
the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) (1), (3), and (4) on the grounds that intiff lacked
standing to bring the lawsuit and therefore that this Court
lacked jurisdiction to hear this case. For the reasons set
forth herein, Defendants' motion [dkt. no. 128] is GRANTED, the
judgment [dkt. no. 110] is VACATED, and the complaint is
DISMISSED.
USDCSDNY

ELECTRONICftJ.J...Y FILED
DOC II:
DAlE 0-,3
--......_--
,-, --.;..,.
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 10
2

I . BACKGROUND
The backgr ound of t hi s act i on has been di scussed i n t wo
opi ni ons gr ant i ng par t i al summar y j udgment and damages t o
Pl ai nt i f f , and f ami l i ar i t y wi t h whi ch i s pr esumed.
Pl ai nt i f f EMI Ent er t ai nment Wor l d I nc. ( EMI or
Pl ai nt i f f ) i s a musi c publ i sher t hat pur por t ed t o own or
cont r ol copyr i ght s t o f our musi cal composi t i ons t hat Def endant s
Kar en Recor ds, I nc. and Kar en Publ i shi ng I nc. owned by
i ndi vi dual Def endant s I sabel Rodr i guez and husband Bi enveni do
Rodr i guez( col l ect i vel y, Def endant s) used on r ecor ds t hey
r el eased bet ween 1999 and 2001. ( J udgment at 2. ) Begi nni ng i n
1998, EMI i ni t i at ed sever al l egal act i ons agai nst Def endant s f or
copyr i ght i nf r i ngement based on unpai d r oyal t i es f or numer ous
composi t i ons, i ncl udi ng t he f our at i ssue i n t hi s act i on. ( I d. )
EMI f i l ed t hi s sui t i n 2005. Fol l owi ng di scover y i n 2008,
par t i es f i l ed cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment . ( I d. at 3. )
I n Mar ch 2009, t he Cour t gr ant ed summar y j udgment t o EMI wi t h
r espect t o cer t ai n of i t s cl ai ms, speci f i cal l y t hat EMI had
t er mi nat ed Def endant s compul sor y l i censes t o cer t ai n of t he
composi t i ons, and t hat t he Def endant s never obt ai ned a l i cense
t o t he r emai ni ng composi t i on. ( I d. at 3. ) I n 2011, t he Cour t
f ound wi l l f ul copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , and gr ant ed Pl ai nt i f f s a
$100, 000 j udgment .
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 10
3

Def endant s f i l ed t hi s mot i on t o set asi de t he j udgment on
August 15, 2012. ( See Memor andumof Law i n Suppor t of
Def endant s Mot i on t o Set Asi de J udgment [ dkt . no. 130] ( Def .
Memo) . ) Def endant s move t o set asi de t he j udgment on t he
gr ounds t hat newl y di scover ed evi dence shows t hat Pl ai nt i f f has
no di r ect owner shi p i nt er est i n t he copyr i ght s over whi ch i t has
sued because t hose r i ght s ar e owned by subsi di ar i es of t he
Pl ai nt i f f who wer e never j oi ned t o t he act i on. ( Def . Memo at
1. ) Thus, Def endant s ar gue, Pl ai nt i f f s l acked st andi ng t o br i ng
t he act i on. ( I d. ) Def endant s move t o vacat e t he j udgment
pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 1) , ( 3) ,
and ( 4) .
I I . DI SCUSSI ON
a. Legal St andar d
Under Rul e 60( b) , a di st r i ct cour t may r el i eve a par t y f r om
a f i nal j udgment or or der f or , among ot her s, t he f ol l owi ng
r easons: ( 1) mi st ake, i nadver t ence, sur pr i se, or excusabl e
negl ect ; ( 3) f r aud ( whet her i nt r i nsi c or ext r i nsi c) ,
mi sr epr esent at i on, or mi sconduct by an opposi ng par t y; or , ( 4)
t he j udgment i s voi d. Mot i ons under Rul e 60( b) ar e addr essed
t o t he sound di scr et i on of t he di st r i ct cour t and ar e gener al l y
gr ant ed onl y upon a showi ng of except i onal ci r cumst ances.
Mendel l ex r el . Vi acom, I nc. v. Gol l ust , 909 F. 2d 724, 731 ( 2d
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 10
4

Ci r . 1990) ( ci t i ng Nemai zer v. Baker , 793 F. 2d 58, 61 ( 2d Ci r .
1986) ) .
Rul e 60( b) ( 1) per mi t s a di st r i ct cour t t o gr ant r el i ef
f r oma j udgment based on mi st ake, i nadver t ence, sur pr i se, or
excusabl e negl ect . J ohnson v. Uni v. of Rochest er Med. Ct r . ,
642 F. 3d 121, 125 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P.
60( b) ( 1) ) . The Cour t of Appeal s has i nt er pr et ed mi st ake t o
i ncl ude bot h er r or s of a par t y or hi s r epr esent at i ves, see I n r e
Emer gency Beacon Cor p. , 666 F. 2d 754, 759 ( 2d Ci r . 1981) , and
mi st akes of l aw or f act made by t he di st r i ct cour t , see I n r e
310 Assocs. , 346 F. 3d 31, 35 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) .
Rul e 60( b) ( 4) pr ovi des t hat t he cour t may vacat e a j udgment
i f t he j udgment i s voi d. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60( b) ( 4) . A
j udgment i s not voi d wi t hi n t he meani ng of Rul e 60( b) ( 4) mer el y
because i t i s er r oneous. I n r e Texl on Cor p. , 596 F. 2d 1092,
1099 ( 2d Ci r . 1979) ( ci t i ng 11 Wr i ght & Mi l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce
and Pr ocedur es 2862, at 198 ( 1973) ) . A j udgment i s voi d onl y
i f t he cour t t hat r ender ed i t l acked j ur i sdi ct i on of t he subj ect
mat t er , or of t he par t i es, or i f i t act ed i n a manner
i nconsi st ent wi t h due pr ocess of l aw. Gr ace v. Bank Leumi
Tr ust Co. of N. Y. , 443 F. 3d 180, 193 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng
Texl on, 596 F. 2d at 1099) .
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 4 of 10
5

Fi nal l y, even wher e a movant can demonst r at e t hat one of
t he enumer at ed gr ounds i n Rul e 60( b) appl i es, i n or der t o
pr evai l t he movant must st i l l demonst r at e a st r ong case t hat t he
movant has a mer i t or i ous cl ai m. Uni t ed St at es v. Bi l l i ni , No.
99 Cr . 156, 2006 WL 3457834, at *2 ( S. D. N. Y. Nov. 22, 2006)
( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ci r ami , 563 F. 2d 26, 35 ( 2d Ci r .
1977) ) ; accor d Snyman v. W. A. BaumCo. , I nc. , 360 F. App x 251,
254 ( 2d Ci r . 2010) ( [ T] he di st r i ct cour t may pr oper l y consi der
t he mer i t s of t he under l yi ng act i on i n det er mi ni ng whet her t o
gr ant a mot i on pur suant t o Rul e 60( b) . ) .
b. Anal ysi s
A cl ai mt hat a par t y l acks st andi ng t o br i ng sui t i s an
at t ack on a cour t s subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t hat par t y.
Bender v. Wi l l i amspor t Ar ea Sch. Di st . , 475 U. S. 534, 54142
( 1986) . St andi ng i s not subj ect t o wai ver , and t he cour t i s
obl i gat ed t o addr ess st andi ng even i n t he absence of t he i ssue
bei ng r ai sed by t he par t i es t hemsel ves. Uni t ed St at es v. Hays,
515 U. S. 737, 742 ( 1995) . Lack of st andi ng of t he par t y
br i ngi ng sui t woul d r esul t i n a l ack of j ur i sdi ct i on of t he
Cour t t o hear t he mat t er and woul d r equi r e a di smi ssal of t he
act i on. See Luj an v. Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 560
61 ( 1992) ; Abor t i on Ri ght s Mobi l i zat i on, I nc. v. Baker , 885 F. 2d
1020, 1023 ( 2d Ci r . 1989) . Pl ai nt i f f s st andi ng and owner shi p
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 5 of 10
6

i nt er est s i n t he copyr i ght s at i ssue wer e never chal l enged or
anal yzed by t he cour t . ( Def . Memo at 3. ) Thus, t hi s i ssue i s
r i pe f or r evi ew pur suant t o a Rul e 60 mot i on f or
r econsi der at i on. See I n r e Bul k Oi l ( USA) I nc. , No. 93 Ci v.
4492, 4494, 2007 WL 1121739, at *10 ( S. D. N. Y. Apr . 11, 2007) .
Pl ai nt i f f does not di sput e t hat i t does not have, and has
never had, di r ect owner shi p of any of t he copyr i ght s at i ssue i n
t hi s l awsui t but ar gues t hat t he r i ght s at i ssue ar e owned by
whol l y- owned subsi di ar i es of Pl ai nt i f f or ent i t i es on behal f
of whi ch Pl ai nt i f f was aut hor i zed t o act . ( See Let t er f r omNei l
J . Sal t zman, Esq. , Sept . 7, 2012 [ dkt . no. 132] ( Def . Supp.
Memo) , at 1; Pl ai nt i f f s Memor andumi n Opposi t i on t o
Def endant s Mot i on, Sept . 27, 2012 [ dkt . no. 133] ( Pl . Opp. ) ,
at 3. ) Copyr i ght cer t i f i cat i on not i ces pr ovi ded by Pl ai nt i f f
demonst r at e t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s not t he named owner of t he
copyr i ght s. ( Decl . of J or dan Gr eenber ger i n Opposi t i on t o
Mot i on t o Set Asi de and St ay Enf or cement of J udgment , Sept . 27,
2012 [ dkt . no. 143] , at Ex. 3. ) Pl ai nt i f f has al so not
at t empt ed t o j oi n t he subsi di ar i es t hat do hol d t he r i ght s t o
t he composi t i ons at i ssue as r eal par t i es i n i nt er est pur suant
t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 17 unt i l t hi s t i me. ( Def . Supp. Memo at 1. )
Ther e i s suppor t f r omdeci si ons i n t hi s ci r cui t f or t he
hol di ng t hat a par ent company l acks st andi ng t o br i ng cl ai ms on
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 6 of 10
7

behal f of i t s subsi di ar y. See, e. g. , Fei nber g v. Kat z, No. 99
Ci v. 45, 2002 WL 1751135, at *6 ( S. D. N. Y. J ul y 26, 2002) ; Di esel
Sys. , Lt d. v. Yi p Shi ng Di esel Eng g Co. , Lt d. , 861 F. Supp.
179, 181 ( E. D. N. Y. 1994) ; Br oss Ut i l s. Ser v. Cor p. v.
Aboubshai t , 618 F. Supp. 1442, 1445 ( S. D. N. Y. 1985) . Thi s
concl usi on f ol l ows f r omt he pr i nci pl e t hat a par ent cor por at i on
cannot cr eat e a subsi di ar y and t hen i gnor e i t s separ at e
cor por at e exi st ence whenever i t woul d be advant ageous t o t he
par ent . Fei nber g, 2002 WL 1751135 at *6 ( quot i ng Pa. Eng g
Cor p. v. I sl i p Res. Recover y Agency, 710 F. Supp. 456, 465
( E. D. N. Y. 1989) ) . Pl ai nt i f f s do not pr ovi de i n t hei r paper s a
ci t at i on t o a case hol di ng ot her wi se. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f ar gues
t hat i t was aut hor i zed t o act on t he copyr i ght cl ai mant s
behal f , ( Pl . Opp. at 3) , t he l aw r equi r es mor e t han an assur ance
of aut hor i zat i on t o conf er Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng upon a par t y.
I n l i ght of t he r ecent l y unear t hed det er mi nat i on t hat
Pl ai nt i f f l acks of st andi ng, Rul es 60( b) ( 1) and 60( b) ( 4) pr ovi de
appr opr i at e bases i n t hi s case t o vacat e t he j udgment . The
mi st ake i n t hi s case was t hat al l par t i es and t he Cour t
assumed j ur i sdi ct i on over Pl ai nt i f f based on Pl ai nt i f f s
r epr esent at i ons t hat i t was t he owner of t he copyr i ght s at
i ssue. Al t hough Def endant coul d have r ai sed t hi s i ssue at an
ear l i er st age i n t he pr oceedi ng, and even admi t t ed t hat
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 7 of 10
8

Pl ai nt i f f cont r ol l ed t he copyr i ght s at i ssue, ( Pl . Opp. at 79,
12) , st andi ng cannot be wai ved by ei t her par t y, and t he Cour t
has an obl i gat i on t o r ai se t he mat t er sua spont e. See Mancuso
v. Consol . Edi son Co. of N. Y. , 130 F. Supp. 2d 584, 58889
( S. D. N. Y. 2001) . Because of t hi s j ur i sdi ct i onal f l aw, t he
j udgment i s voi d.
Fur t her , al t hough Pl ai nt i f f has at t empt ed t o pr ovi de
r at i f i cat i on by t he subsi di ar y owner s of t he copyr i ght s, or t o
now j oi n t hose subsi di ar i es as par t i es i n r eal i nt er est pur suant
t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 17, ( Pl . Opp. at 1213) , Rul e 17 r equi r es
t hat j oi nder t o be made wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me af t er an
obj ect i on i s r ai sed, and t he par t y must have a r easonabl e basi s
f or nami ng t he wr ong par t y at t he out set . See Advanced
Magnet i cs, I nc. v. Bayf r ont Par t ner s, I nc. , 106 F. 3d 11, 20 ( 2d
Ci r . 1997) ( [ T] he di st r i ct cour t r et ai ns some di scr et i on t o
di smi ss an act i on wher e t her e was no sembl ance of any r easonabl e
basi s f or t he nami ng of an i ncor r ect par t y . . . . ) .
Def endant s st at e t hat t hey al er t ed Pl ai nt i f f t o t he
j ur i sdi ct i onal def ect i n Apr i l 2012, onl y t o be di r ect ed i n
ci r cl es t o t he or i gi nal copyr i ght not i ces and ot her sour ces over
t he cour se of sever al mont hs. ( See Decl . of Nei l J . Sal t zman i n
Suppor t of Def endant s Mot i on t o Set Asi de J udgment , Aug. 15,
2012, [ dkt . no. 129] , at Ex. B. ) Pl ai nt i f f s counsel , who has
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 8 of 10
9

been r epr esent i ng Pl ai nt i f f t hr oughout t he ent i r e cour se of t hi s
l i t i gat i on begi nni ng i n 2005, di d not seek t o r emedy t he
si t uat i on pr ocedur al l y. Thus, t he r easonabl e per i od of t i me f or
j oi nder of t he subsi di ar i es has passed. Addi t i onal l y, Pl ai nt i f f
has not i dent i f i ed a r easonabl e basi s f or f ai l i ng t o name t he
subsi di ar i es as pl ai nt i f f s i ni t i al l y. The i dent i t i es of t he
r eal par t i es i n i nt er est have been known t o Pl ai nt i f f si nce t he
i ni t i at i on of t he l awsui t , as demonst r at ed i n t he copyr i ght
paper s Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed t o t he cour t . ( See Decl . of Chr i st os
P. Badavas, Mar . 14, 2008 [ dkt . no. 57] , at Exs. G- J . )
Fi nal l y, as st at ed above, Def endant s ar gument t hat
Pl ai nt i f f l acks st andi ng i s a mer i t or i ous def ense, and t hus
sat i sf i es t he r equi r ement of Rul e 60( b) t hat a movi ng par t y must
demonst r at e a mer i t or i ous cl ai m. Bi l l i ni , 2006 WL 3457834, at
*2.








Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 9 of 10
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion [dkt. no.
128] is GRANTED, the judgment [dkt. no. 110] is VACATED, and the
complaint is DISMISSED. In light of the judgment being
vacated, aintiff's pending motion for attorney's fees [dkt.
no. 114] is denied as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
June A, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
Case 1:05-cv-00390-LAP-JCF Document 140 Filed 06/10/13 Page 10 of 10