Capitol Records, LLC v. Redigi Inc.

Filing 325

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees . . Document filed by Capitol Christian Music Group, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Virgin Records IR Holdings, Inc.. (Mandel, Richard)

Download PDF
Case 1:12-cv-00095-RJS Document 325 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------- X CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, CAPITOL CHRISTIAN MUSIC GROUP, INC. and VIRGIN RECORDS IR HOLDINGS, INC., 12 Civ. 0095 (RJS) Plaintiffs, -againstREDIGI INC., JOHN OSSENMACHER and LARRY RUDOLPH a/k/a LA WREN CE S. ROGEL, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------- X PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C. 114 West 4ih Street New York, New York 10036-6799 (212) 790-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Capitol Records, LLC, Christian Music Group, Inc. and Virgin Records IR Holdings, Inc. 29503/003/2931404. l Case 1:12-cv-00095-RJS Document 325 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 4 Plaintiffs Capitol Records, LLC, Capitol Christian Music Group, Inc. and Virgin Records IR Holdings, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") respectfully submit this reply memorandum in further support of their motion for attorneys' fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505. Defendant ReDigi Inc. ("ReDigi"), which is no longer represented by counsel in the postappeal District Court proceedings, submitted no response to Plaintiffs' motion. Defendants Ossenmacher and Rogel, appearing prose, submitted letters in which they requested that the Court stay any further proceedings with respect to Plaintiffs' fee application until the Second Circuit ruling is "final" and beyond any further appeal. However, because the Second Circuit has issued its mandate, its order is already final under Fed. R. App. P. 41 (c). See 1998 Adv. Committee Notes to Fed. R. App. P. 41(c) ("A court of appeals' judgment or order is not final until issuance of the mandate; at that time the parties' obligations become fixed."). Defendants never sought to stay the Second Circuit's mandate pending a petition for certiorari pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 41 (d), and thus should not now be permitted to treat the Second Circuit's ruling as something less than final just because they may seek Supreme Court review. In any event, the finality of the underlying proceedings is irrelevant to a motion for attorneys' fees, which is collateral to the decision on the merits and can thus proceed irrespective of any further appellate proceedings. See Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 220, 225 (2d Cir. 2004) ("notwithstanding a pending appeal, a district court retains residual jurisdiction over collateral matters, including claims for attorneys' fees"). Thus, if Defendants truly believed "that there are significant shortcomings and infirmities in the arguments and evidence that Plaintiffs have submitted with their motion for fees," as Mr. Ossenmacher claims in his letter (Docket No. 324), then now was the time to come forward with such arguments. Instead, Defendants seek to 29503/003/293 1404.1 Case 1:12-cv-00095-RJS Document 325 Filed 04/22/19 Page 3 of 4 reserve the right to make such unspecified arguments at some later time "even if Plaintiffs do ultimately prevail in the case." Id. The reality is that Plaintiffs have already prevailed in the case, and the District Court's summary judgment ruling has been unanimously affirmed. Because Defendants have failed to offer any substantive arguments in response to Plaintiffs' fees motion, the Court should grant the motion for the reasons set forth in detail in Plaintiffs' moving papers. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in Plaintiffs' moving papers, Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees should be granted. Dated: New York, New York April 22, 2019 Respectfully submitted, By~::#- COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C. Jonathan Z. King 114 West 4 ?1h Street New York, New York 10036 (212) 790-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Capitol Records, LLC, Christian Music Group, Inc. and Virgin Records IR Holdings, Inc. 2 29503/003/2931404. l Case 1:12-cv-00095-RJS Document 325 Filed 04/22/19 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 22, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees to be served on Defendants John Ossenmacher and Lawrence Rogel by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows : John Ossenmacher 102 NE 2nd Street, No. 261 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Lawrence Rogel 115 Stedman St. Brookline, MA 02446 1 . . . . -~ : ; ~ ~ -&-1--' 'i..__ - . ~ ~-~~/-"' . ·~ Richard S. Mandel 29503/003/2931404. I 3 7 - -;;;;-C (__.

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?