Poindexter v. Cash Money Records

Filing 45

OPINION: Based on the conclusions given within, Cash Money's motion is denied. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/17/2014) (ajs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------x
JACQUELINE POINDEXTER,
13 Civ. 5882

Plaintiff,

OPINION

-againstCASH MONEY RECORDS,
Defendant.

----------------------------------------x
A P P E A RA N C E S:

PRO SE
JACQUELINE POINDEXTER
153-27 120 Avenue
Jamaica, NY 11434

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

I

...

Sweet, D.J.

Defendant
"Defendant")
"August

6

has

Money

submitted a

Letter")

alternative,

Cash

Records

("Cash

Money"

letter dated August

requesting

for

6,

clarification

or

2014

or,

in

the
(the
the

reconsideration of the Opinion and Order issued in

this instant action filed on August 5, 2014 (the "Order"), No. 13
Civ.

5882,

ECF.

"Complaint")

No.

filed

34.
by

The Order dismissed the complaint
pro

se

("Poindexter" or "Plaintiff")

plaintiff
sua

Jacqueline

sponte and granted

(the

Poindexter
Plaintiff

leave to replead an amended complaint within 20 days of the filing
of the Order.

Defendant contends that given the grant of summary

judgment in a related action,

Poindexter v.

Cash Money Records,

No. 13 Civ. 1155, ECF No. 45 (the "Robert Poindexter Action"), and
subsequent sua sponte dismissal in the Order, Plaintiff should not
be given leave to replead.

Based on the reasoning set forth below, the Defendant's
motion is denied

Prior Proceedings

The Complaint and Amended Complaint filed on August 25,
2014

(the

"AC")

allege

that

a

recording titled "Still
1

Ballin"

contains an unauthorized sample of a musical composition and sound
recording titled "Love Gonna Pack Up and Walk Out (Love Gonna Pack
Up)"

("Love Gonna

Pack Up"),

which infringes Plaintiff's alleged

rights in these works. A detailed recitation of the facts alleged
in

the

Complaint,

the

AC,

and

complaint

filed

in

the

Robert

Poindexter Action (the "Robert Poindexter Complaint") is provided
in

the

opinions

Poindexter

v.

and

orders

March

3,

1155,

2014,

Robert

2014 WL 818955

(the "March 3 Opinion"), and April 8, 2014,

Jacqueline Poindexter v.

(S.D.N.Y.

on

13 Civ.

Cash Money Records,

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2014)

1383781

filed

Apr.

Cash Money Records,

8'

2014)

(the

13 Civ. 5882, 2014 WL
"April

8

Opinion").

Familiarity with the allegations set forth in those opinions is
assumed.

The
barred

by

March

3 Opinion

collateral

held

estoppel

from

that

Robert

raising

Poindexter

the

issue

of

was
his

ownership of the recording Love Gonna Pack Up, the same recording
at issue in the Complaint and AC, based in part on the opinion of
Honorable Laura Taylor Swain in Poindexter v.
Inc.,

No.

11 Civ.

559(LTS) (JLC),

EMI

2012 WL 1027639

Record

(S.D.N.Y.

Group

Mar.

27, 2012), and granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment as
"Cash Money had no involvement" in the recording underlying the
complaints,

for

"Still Ballin" was

2

self-released by the artist

Shad Gregory Moss, professionally known as Bow Wow ("Bow Wow") and
not Cash Money.

The

April

8

related to the Robert
Complaint

and

Opinion

found

the

Poindexter Action.

Complaint

are

virtually

instant

action

The Robert

identical.

to

be

Poindexter
April

See

8

Opinion, 2014 WL 1383781, at *2. Given the similarity of the two
complaints, the April 8 Opinion ordered the Plaintiff to file an
opposition to a potential sua sponte dismissal within twenty days.
Id. The Order subsequently dismissed the Complaint sua sponte. See

Order at 5-8.

Defendant
clarification

or,

submitted
in

the

the

August

alternative,

6

Letter

seeking

reconsideration

of

the

portion of the Order which granted Poindexter leave to replead.
Cash Money contends that since the March 3 Opinion dismissed the
Robert

Poindexter Action on

summary

judgment

grounds

Plaintiff

should be barred from pleading an amended complaint.

Plaintiff

subsequently filed the AC on August 25, 2014. Treating the letter
as a motion, the matter was marked fully submitted on September 3,
2014.

The Applicable Standard

3

Under Local Rule 6.3, a court may grant reconsideration
where

the

party

moving

for

reconsideration

"intervening change in controlling law,

demonstrates

an

the availability of new

evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice." Schoolcraft v. City of New York,
(S.D.N.Y. 2014)
F.

Supp.

(quoting Henderson v. Metro. Bank & Trust Co., 502

2d 372,
253

Sollecito,

298 F.R.D. 134, 136

375-76
F.

(S.D.N.Y.

Supp.

2d

2007));
713,

see

715

also

Parrish

(S.D.N.Y.

v.

2003)

("Reconsideration may be granted to correct clear error, prevent
manifest injustice or review the court's decision in light of the
availability of new evidence.")
v.

Nat'l Mediation Ed.,

956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)).

Reconsideration of a
Rule 6.3 or Fed. R. Civ.

(citing Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd.

P.

court's prior order under

59(e)

Local

"is an extraordinary remedy to

be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation
of scarce judicial resources." Ferring B. V. v. Allergan, Inc., No.
12 Civ. 2650(RWS), 2013 WL 4082930, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2013)
(quoting
(S.D.N.Y.

Sikhs

for

Justice

v.

2012)). Accordingly,

Nath,

893

Supp.

2d

598,

605

the standard of review applicable

to such a motion is "strict." Shrader v.
F.3d 255, 257

F.

CSX Transp.,

Inc.,

70

(2d Cir. 1995).

The burden is on the movant to demonstrate that the Court
4

overlooked

controlling

decisions

or

material

facts

that

were

before it on the original motion, and that might "'materially have
influenced its earlier decision.'" Anglo Am. Ins. Group v. CalFed,

Inc.,

940 F.

AT&T Info.
seeking

Supp.

554,

557

(S.D.N.Y.

Sys., 715 F. Supp. 516, 517

reconsideration

may

neither

(quoting Morser v.

1996)

(S.D.N.Y.
repeat

1989)). A party

"arguments

already

briefed, considered and decided," nor "advance new facts,

issues

or arguments not previously presented to the Court." Schonberger

v.

Serchuk,

742

F.

Supp.

108,

119

(S.D.N.Y.

1990)

(citations

omitted).

The
matters

that

reason
were

for

the

rule

"overlooked"

is

confining
to

reconsideration

"ensure

the

finality

to
of

decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining
a

decision

and

then

plugging

additional matters." Polsby v.

the

gaps

of

a

lost

motion

St. Martin's Press, Inc., No.

690(MBM), 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2000)

with
97-

(citation

and quotation marks omitted) . Motions for reconsideration "are not
vehicles for taking a second bite at the apple, ... and [the court]
[should] not consider facts not in the record to be facts that the
court overlooked." Rafter v.
Cir. 2008)

(citation and quotation marks omitted).

opportunity
rejected,

Liddle, 288 Fed. App'x 768,

to

renew

nor is

it a

arguments

that

chance for
5

the

court

769

(2d

It "is not an
considered

and

a party to re-argue a motion

because it is dissatisfied with the original outcome."
Partners,

2414047,

Inc.

at

v.

*l

Ikanos Commc'ns,

(S.D.N.Y.

June

Inc.,

12,

No.

2008).

Panther

06-12967,

Thus,

a

2008 WL

court

must

narrowly construe and strictly apply Local Rule 6.3 so as to avoid
duplicative

rulings

on

previously

considered

issues,

and

to

prevent the rule from being used as a substitute for appealing a
final judgment. See In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. Sec., Derivative
and ERISA Litig.,

(S.D.N.Y. Jul.

08

M.D.L.

16, 2009)

No.

1963,

2009

WL

2168767,

at

*1

("A motion for reconsideration is not a

motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party
does not like the way the original motion was resolved.")

(citation

and quotation marks omitted).

Cash Money's Motion Is Denied

The

August

6

Letter

has

provided

no

grounds

for

reconsideration. Consequently, Cash Money's motion is denied. See
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52

(2d

Cir.

2012)

("[T]he

standard

for

granting

[a

motion

for

reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be
denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions
or data that the court overlooked.").

6

In

addition,

the

Order

granted

Plaintiff

leave

to

replead after the March 3 Opinion dismissed a related action on
summary judgment grounds but prior to discovery. Federal Rules of
Civil

Procedure

15 (a)

provides

that

"[t] he

court

should freely

give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ.

P.

15(a). It is ultimately "within the sound discretion of the court
whether to grant leave to amend." John Hancock Mut.
v. Amerford Int'l Corp., 22 F.3d 458, 462

Life Ins.

Co.

(2d Cir. 1994).

The Complaint was dismissed sua sponte based on the same
reasoning summary judgment was granted to Cash Money in the March
3 Opinion. However, a certain measure of deference must be afforded
to prose litigants.
93 ( 2007)

See, e.g.,

Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S.

89,

("[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must

be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers.")

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)

(internal quotations omitted)); Chavis v. Chappius,
1 71

( 2d

Cir.

2010)

("' [A]

party

appearing

618 F.3d 162,

without

counsel

is

afforded extra leeway in meeting the procedural rules governing
litigation,' and hence 'courts are, for example, to construe a pro
se litigant's pleadings and motions liberally.'" (quoting Burch v.
Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 2008))).

Permitting Plaintiff leave to replead an amended complaint despite
the

sua

spon te

dismissal

of

the
7

Complaint

is

well

within

the

latitude of deference a court can afford a pro se party even if
dismissal was based on summary judgment grounds. See, e.g., Hanlin
v.

Mitchelson,

794 F.2d 834,

840-41

(2d Cir.

1986)

(recognizing

that the granting of a prediscovery summary judgment motion need
not preclude a court from granting leave to amend the complaint
even where the new claim arises "from the same set of operative
facts as the original complaint"); Tobin v. Gluck, Nos. 07-CV-1605
(MKB), ll-CV-3985 (MKB), 2014 WL 1310347, at *12-14 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.
28,

2014)

(allowing

plaintiff

leave

to

amend

complaint

after

granting defendants' summary judgment motion); Fitzgerald v. First
East

Seventh

St.

Tenants

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 1996)

Corp.,

No.

96

CIV.

0126,

ECF

No.

8

(dismissing the complaint sua sponte but

granting leave to replead) .

8

Conclusion

Based

on

the

conclusions

given

motion is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:

New York, Nelw York
September /-, 2014

Robert

9

above,

Cash

Money's