Jones et al v. Universal Music Group et al

Filing 58

DECISION AND ORDER Accordingly, it is herebyORDERED that Plaintiff Ali Joness Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Universal Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, Universal Music Corp., BMG Songs, Inc., Kobalt Music Publis hing America Inc. d/b/a Kobalt Music Group, Hipgnosis Songs Group, LLC, and Harbourview Equity Partners, LLC for failure to effect timely service. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. Hipgnosis Songs Group, LLC, Kobalt Music Publishing America Inc., Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, BMG Songs Inc. and Harbourview Equity Partners, LLC terminated. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 3/7/2025) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

3/7/25

ALI JONES p/k/a “ALI”,

24-CV-7098 (VM)

Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER

- against UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, UNIVERSAL
MUSIC PUBLISHING GROUP, UNIVERSAL
MUSIC CORP., BMG SONGS, INC., KOBALT
MUSIC PUBLISHING AMERICA INC. d/b/a
KOBALT MUSIC GROUP, HIPGNOSIS SONGS
GROUP, LLC, HARBOURVIEW EQUITY
PARTNERS, LLC, and CORNELL IRA
HAYNES, JR. p/k/a “NELLY”,
Defendants.

VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ali Jones’s (“Jones”)
response (see Dkt. No. 54) to the Court’s Order to Show Cause
as to why the Amended Complaint should not be dismissed
without prejudice as to the Defendants who have not been
served. (See Dkt. No. 30.) For the reasons explained below,
the Court dismisses the action without prejudice as to the
Defendants who have not been served.
I.

BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2024, Jones filed his Amended Complaint.
(See Dkt. No. 11.) Defendant Cornell Ira Haynes (“Haynes”)
agreed to waive service. (See Dkt. No. 15.) The remaining
named Defendants – Universal Music Group, Universal Music
1

Publishing Group, Universal Music Corp., BMG Songs, Inc.,
Kobalt Music Publishing America, Inc. d/b/a Kobalt Music
Group, Hipgnosis Songs Group, LLC, and Harbourview Equity
Partners, LLC (collectively, the “Corporate Defendants”) –
have not been served. “If a defendant is not served within 90
days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant
or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed.
R. Civ. Pro. 4(m).
On February 25, 2025, this Court ordered Jones to show
cause as to why this action should not be dismissed without
prejudice as to the Corporate Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 30.)
On March 4, 2025, Jones responded via letter (see Dkt. No. 54)
supported by his counsel’s declaration (see Dkt. No. 55).
Jones argued that he submitted waivers of service on the
Corporate Defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“Rule”) 4(d) on January 9, 2025, “expecting good
faith

compliance,”

the

Corporate

Defendants

failed

to

respond, and Jones “relied in good faith” on the waiver
service requests. (Dkt. No. 54, at 2.) Jones also stated that
the

number

and

geographic

locations

of

the

Corporate

Defendants, the dismissal of Jones’s initial Complaint and
amendment

of

pleadings,

and

Haynes’s
2

pending

Motion

for

Sanctions (see Dkt. No. 18) impacted service on the Corporate
Defendants. (Dkt. No. 54, at 1-2.) Finally, Jones claimed
that an extension of time to complete service on the Corporate
Defendants

would

not

prejudice

them

because

they

are

“sophisticated business entities with legal representation
and have been aware of the lawsuit since its filing.” (Dkt.
No. 54, at 3.)
II.

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Jones has not shown “good cause”
for his failure to serve the Corporate Defendants by the 90day deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Regarding Jones’s reliance
on the Corporate Defendants’ unexecuted waivers of service,
“service by waiver was not effectuated, because [Jones] did
not comply with Rule 4(d),” which “required [Jones] to request
a waiver of service from [the Corporate Defendants], obtain
[their] written agreement on a waiver of service form, and
then file the executed form.” Kogan v. Facebook, Inc., 334
F.R.D. 393, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (dismissing complaint for
failure to comply with Rule 4(d)).
Likewise,

none

of

Jones’s

other

proffered

excuses

satisfy the standard for “good cause,” which exists only in
“exceptional circumstances where the plaintiff's failure to
3

serve

process

in

a

timely

manner

was

the

result

of

circumstances beyond its control.” Ping Chen ex rel. U.S.
v. EMSL Analytical, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 282, 306 (S.D.N.Y.
2013)

(quotation

omitted).

Regardless

of

Jones’s

explanations, Jones “did not even request leave to file a
waiver of service or an extension of time to serve” the
Corporate Defendants. Kogan, 334 F.R.D. at 402. Indeed, Jones
did not request the Court to issue summonses to the Corporate
Defendants until February 27, 2025 — four days after his time
to effectuate service expired under Rule 4(m) and only after
this Court ordered Jones to show cause as to why the action
should not be dismissed without prejudice as to the Corporate
Defendants. (See Dkt. Nos. 31-37.)
III. ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERD that Plaintiff Ali Jones’s Amended Complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice as to Universal Music Group,
Universal Music Publishing Group, Universal Music Corp., BMG
Songs,

Inc.,

Kobalt

Kobalt

Music

Group,

Music

Publishing

Hipgnosis

Songs

America
Group,

Inc.
LLC,

d/b/a
and

Harbourview Equity Partners, LLC for failure to effect timely
service.
4

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 7, 2025
New York, New York

5