Poindexter v. Cash Money Records

Filing 23

OPINION: The March 3, 2014 Opinion dismissed the complaint in the Robert Poindexter Action pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6). Since the Complaint and the Robert Poindexter Complaint contain virtually identical allegations the Court, in an effort to administ er its docket, is prepared to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint sua sponte unless an opposition is filed within twenty days. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a stay is granted pending resolution of this issue. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/8/2014) (kgo)

UNI

D STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------­ -----­

-----------------­

----x

JACQUELINE POINDEXTER,
Plaintiff,
inst-

OPINION

CASH MONEY RECORDS,
Defendant.
------

13 Civ. 5882

------- ------- ----------------X

A P PEA RAN C E S:
PRO SE

JACQUELINE POINDEXTER
153-27 120 Avenue
Jamaica, NY 11434

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

SHAPIRO, ARATO & ISSERLES LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, 40 th Floor
New York, NY 1010
By:
Cynthia S. Arato, Esq.
James Darrow, Esq.

Sweet, D.J.

Defendant Cash Money Records

("Cash Money" or the

"Defendant") has moved to designate the instant action initiated
by pro se plaintiff Jacqueline Poindexter ("Poindexter" or
"Plaintiff") as related to an action filed by Robert Poindexter,
Robert Poindexter v. Cash Money Records, No. 13 Civ. 1155 (RWS)
("Robert Poindexter Action") pursuant to Rule 13 of the Local
Rules for the Division of Business among District Judges
("Division Of Business Rules") and to stay the instant action.
The instant action relates to a complaint filed by Plaintiff on
August 20, 2013 ("Complaint").

Based on the reasoning below,

Defendant's motions to designate the instant action as related
to the Robert Poindexter Action and for a stay are granted.

1

Prior Proceedings

The Complaint alleges that a sound recording and the
underlying musical composition that she, respectively, co­
produced and co-wrote were sampled without authorization in a

The instant motions are before me with the consent of the Honorable Analisa
Torres.
See Rule 13 of the Division Of Business Rules.
1

1

recording by an artist known as Bow Wow released by the
Defendant.

The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff is a
songwriter and music producer and the Defendant, Cash Money, "is
in the business of recording, selling and distributing
[p]honograph [r]ecords."

(Compl.

<j[

2).

The Complaint concerns

a recording titled "Still Ballin," contained on an alleged
"album" titled "Green Light 3," by the artist Shad Gregory Moss,
(Compl.

professionally known as Bow Wow.

<j[

4).

It alleges that

"Still Ballin" contains an unauthorized sample of a musical
composition and sound recording titled "Love Gonna Pack Up and
Walk Out (Love Gonna Pack Up)," which infringes Plaintiff's
alleged rights in these works.

The Complaint alleges that Poindexter co-wrote the
musical composition "Love Gonna Pack Up," and co-produced a
"classic" recording of that work in 1972, performed by the
recording group The Persuaders.
notes that she

1S

(Id.

<j[<j[

4-5). The Complaint

"not now the copyright owner" of "Love Gonna

Pack Up," (id. at 4,

<j[

10), but that "a written agreement exists

with the copyright owner Warner/Chappell [Music] " - a music
publishing company - "granting [Poindexter] the right to
personally file such a complaint as this,"
2

(id.). The Complaint

al
t

s a right to file a complaint under the
Uni ted States Constitution.

Cash Money is all
in

s

(See, e.g., id. ,

ght Act and

(Id.).

to have relea

4 (alleging that "Cash Money

"Love Gonna Pack Up" "into it's [sicl

'Still Ballin'"); id. ,

6

recording

t

t

Cash Money did not acquire

recording

'[tlhe illegal us

is that

rization, to use

1

version")} .

On November 19, 2013, Defendant submitt
(" De

's November 19, 2013 Letter")

Plaintiff's action to be designat
Poindexter Action and the

a letter

requesting

r

as related to t

rt

action stayed pending

resolution of Defendant's motion to

smiss in the

Poindexter Action.

November 21, 2013,

Plaintiff object

In a letter
to Defendant's
to the Robert Poi

action as re

November 21, 2013 Letter").

On De

er action ("Plaintiff's
r

27, 2013, De
27, 2013 Letter")

submitted a letter ("Defendant's
indicating

st to designate this

it believed Plaintiff

not submit an

opposition to De

's November 19, 2013 Letter and motions

requested therein.

intiff responded on January 6, 2014

letter ("Plaintiff's January 6, 2014 Letter"),

3

indicating t

a

she wished

the Plaintiff's November 21, 2013 Letter to

treated as an opposition to Defendant's November 19, 2013
Letter.

Defendant submitted a letter on January 14, 2014

("Defendant's January 14, 2014 Letter"), in reply to Plaintiff's
January 6, 2014 Letter, contesting whether Plaintiff did
actually oppose Defendant's motions.

The instant motions were marked fully submitt

on

January 15, 2014.

The Instant Action Is Related To The Robert Poindexter Action

Defendant sought pursuant to Rule 13 of t

Division

of Business Rules to designate the instant action as related to
e 13(a) states:

the Robert Poindexter Action.

Subject to the limitat
set forth below, a civil
case, bankruptcy appeal, or motion to withdraw the
bankruptcy reference will
deemed related to one or
more civil cases, appeals or motions when the
interests of justice and efficiency will be served. In
dete
ning relatedness, a judge will cons
r whether
(A) the actions concern
same or substantially
similar parties, property, transactions or events; (B)
is substantial factual overlapi (C) the
ies
could be s
ected to conflicting orders; and (D)
whether absent a dete
nation of relatedness t
would
a substantial duplication of ef
and
expense, delay, or undue burden on the Court, parties
or witnesses .

4

There is no substant

difference between the

Complaint here and the compla
Action.

Robert Poindexter

They each allege that a sound recording and underl

composition that the

rs, parties who have the same

address in Queens, cIa
sampled without autho
~~

(Compare Compl.

to have co-produced and co-written was
zation

a recording by Bow Wow.
Robert Poindexter v.

I, 4 6

Records, No. 13 Civ. 1155 (RWS) , slip. Op.
2014)

(the "March 3, 2014 Op

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3,

on" or "Opinion")).

rtually identical.

complaints are

Money

, the

(Compare Compl. wi

Complaint, Robert Poindexter v. Cash

s

No. 13 Civ.

1155 (RWS) , ECF. No. 1 ("Robert Poindexter Complaint")).
of Robert Poindexter's complaint are

Substantial port
reproduced

in the instant Complaint.

similarity of t

se actions, a substantial s

resources would result from having both cases
same court

judge.

Given the

of judicial
before the

Moreover, Defendant would not have to

defend the case on two fronts that would unnecess
its litigation expenses.
Robert Po

.).

As such,

ly increase

tant action and the

er Action are related cases pursuant to rule 13
two are consolidated.

of the

sion of Business Rules, and t

See

Merriweather v. Sherwood, No. 77 Civ. 3421(AGS), 2002

e.

WL 1066755, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2002)
5

(consolidating and

designating as related two cases given t

substantial overlap

between them) .

Conclusion

Based on the reasoning above, Defendant's motion to
designate t

instant action as related to the Robert Poindexter

Action is granted.

March 3, 2014 Opinion dismissed the complaint
the Robert Poindexter Action pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6).
t

Since

Complaint and the Robert Poindexter Complaint contain

virtually identical allegations the Court, in an effort to
administer its docket, is prepared to dismiss t
Complaint sua

-------"~--

days.

Plaintiff's

unless an opposition is filed with

twenty

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a stay is granted

pending resolution of

s issue.

It is so ordered.

r'

New York, NY
April
2014

6