Capitol Records, LLC v. Redigi Inc.
MOTION for Reconsideration re; 148 Memorandum & Opinion,,, Notice of Motion of Individual Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Document filed by John Ossenmacher, Larry Rudolph. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Giddings, Nathaniel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC,
REDIGI INC., JOHN OSSENMACHER, and
LARRY RUDOLPH a/k/a LAWRENCE S.
NOTICE OF MOTION OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
TO EACH PARTY AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Mr. John Ossenmacher and Professor Larry Rudolph (the
“Individual Defendants”) shall and herby do move the Court to reconsider its September 2, 2014
Opinion and Order, ECF No. 148 (“Order”), denying the Individual Defendants’ motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, Capitol Record LLC’s (“Capitol” or “Plaintiff”) claims.
As set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, reconsideration is appropriate
here because the Court did not apply well-settled law requiring Plaintiff to allege particularized
facts supporting each element of each of its claims. Because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is
devoid of non-conclusory factual allegations supporting each of its copyright infringement
claims against the Individual Defendants and because the Court failed to consider and address
some of Individual Defendants’ previous arguments, the Court should reconsider its Order and
dismiss these claims with prejudice as to the Individual Defendants.
Dated: September 16, 2014
/s/ Seth R. Gassman
Seth R. Gassman (SG-8116)
James J. Pizzirusso (pro hac vice)
Nathaniel C. Giddings (pro hac vice)
1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
Counsel for John Ossenmacher & Larry Rudolph
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?