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)

Download PDF
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?