Capitol Records, LLC v. Redigi Inc.
Filing
165
STIPULATION REGARDING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of this Court and further subject to the full and complete preservation of Individual Defendants' right to appeal the motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration orders (the "Orders"), that Individual Defendants shall not be required to file a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in order to preserve their right to obtain appellate review of the Orders; IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to approval of this Court, Individual Defendants, by not filing a motion to dismiss, are not waiving, but rather arc expressly reserving, their right to obtain appellate review of the Court's Orders, and, should an appellate court of competent jurisdiction reverse or vacate either or both of this Court's Orders in whole or in part, that Individual Defendants shall be permitted to seek appropriate relief on remand. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 11/13/2014) (tro)
Case 1:12-cv-00095-RJS Document 162 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1of2 3u.ill),0'ori., ~.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN I>ISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, CAPITOL
l 2-CV-00095 (R.JS)
CHRISTIAN MUSIC GROUP, fNC., and
USDS SDNY
DOCUMENT
VIRGIN RECORDS IR HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
DOC#:
v.
REDIG! INC., JOHN OSSENMACHER, and
LARRY RUDOLPH a/k/a LA WREN CE S.
ROGEL,
I
DATE FILED:
JiJ@~}'f
Defendants.
STIPULATION REGARDING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
WllEIU:AS, on September 2, 2014, the Cou11 in the above-captioned litigation denied
John Ossenmacher and Larry Rudolph's (the "Individual Defendants") motion to dismiss
Plaintiff, Capitol Records, LLC's ("Capitol") First Amended Complaint; 1
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2014, the Court in the above-captioned litigation denied the
Individual Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying the Individual
Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint;2
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2014, Capitol filed a Second Amended Complaint that
added two additional plaintiffs
Christian Music Group, Inc. and Virgin Records IR Holdings,
Inc. (together ''Plaintiffs") - but otherwise was materially the same as the First Amended
.,
.
(.. omp Iamt;ยท>
WHEREAS, Individual Defendants believe that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint is legally deficient for the same reasons that were raised in their motion to dismiss
1
Opinion and Order, ECF No. 148 (filed Sept 9, 2014).
Order, ECF No. 155 (filed Oct. 16, 2014).
3
Second Am. Comp!., ECF No. 161 (filed Oct. 30, 2014).
2
,
Case 1:12-cv-00095-RJS Document 162 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 2
and motion for reconsideration papers;
WHEREAS, in the interest of conserving the resources of Plaintiffs, Individual
Defendants, and the Court ----
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATl~D AND AGREED, subject to the approval of this Court
and further subject to the full and complete preservation of Individual Defendants' right to
appeal the motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration orders (the "Orders"), that
Individual Defendants shall not be required to file a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in order to preserve their right to obtain appellate review of the Orders;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to approval of
this Court, Individual Defendants, by not filing a motion to dismiss. are not waiving, but rather
arc expressly reserving, their right to obtuin appellate review of the Court's Orders, and, should an
appellute court of competent jurisdiction reverse or vacate either or both of this Court's Orders in
whole or in part, that Individual Defondants shall be permitted to seek appropriate relief on remand;
Dated: November 12,
g _
2~~:__ __
R1 ard S. Mandel
COWAN, LIEBOWITZ, & LATMAN, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the America's
New York, NY 10036
Ja
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Counsel/or the Individual Defendants
1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
SO ORDERED
DATED:
/JoV. I
3
'2014
New York, New York
RI~~~
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
t
YlL
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?