Case 1:18-cv-09876-LLS Document 5 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`AMELIA RODRIGUEZ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`POST MALONE; ANDREW WATT; LOUIS
`BELL; REPUBLIC RECORDS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge:
`
`18-CV-9876 (LLS)
`
`ORDER TO AMEND
`
`Plaintiff Amelia Rodriguez, who appears pro se, brings this action asserting that the
`
`defendants infringed her copyright.1 The Court construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting
`
`claims under the Copyright Act. On May 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to
`
`proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file
`
`an amended complaint.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is
`
`frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
`
`relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
`
`Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also
`
`dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is
`
`obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and
`
`interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of
`
`
`1 Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of Court documents. (ECF No. 3.)
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-09876-LLS Document 5 Filed 06/07/19 Page 2 of 6
`
`Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted,
`
`emphasis in original).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff, a Staten Island resident, sues Post Malone, Andrew Watt, and Louis Bell, who
`
`she describes as “producers.” She also sues Republic Records, which she describes as a “record
`
`label.” Plaintiff does not provide an address for any defendant.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that on April 7, 2017, Malone “took [Plaintiff’s] riff and used it in his
`
`own song ‘Over Now.’” (ECF No. 2, at 5.) She asserts that Malone did so without her consent.
`
`Plaintiff states that she has “evidence dated back to” April 6, 2017, “that [she] created the
`
`original song ‘Tim.’” (Id.) Plaintiff specifically accuses Malone of infringing her copyright.
`
`Plaintiff does not mention anything about the other defendants. But she seeks “100% of
`
`all proceeds received on streaming platforms, including those that have been taken down.” (Id. at
`
`6.)
`
`A.
`
`Copyright infringement
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The Copyright Act provides that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any
`
`United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim
`
`has been made in accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).2 District courts within this
`
`
`2 The Copyright Act includes the following provision for copyright infringement claims made
`with respect to “a work consisting of sounds, images, or both, the first fixation of which is made
`simultaneously with its transmission”:
`the copyright owner may, either before or after such fixation takes place, institute
`an action for infringement . . . if, in accordance with requirements that the
`Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, the copyright owner –
`(1) serves notice upon the infringer, not less than 48 hours before such fixation,
`identifying the work and the specific time and source of its first transmission, and
`declaring an intention to secure copyright in the work; and (2) makes registration
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-09876-LLS Document 5 Filed 06/07/19 Page 3 of 6
`
`Circuit require a plaintiff to plead the following to state a copyright infringement claim:
`
`“(1) [the] specific original works [that] are the subject of the copyright claim, (2) that plaintiff
`
`owns the copyrights in those works, (3) that the copyrights have been [preregistered or]
`
`registered in accordance with the statute, and (4) by what acts and during what time the
`
`defendant infringed the copyright.” Conan Props. Int’l LLC v. Sanchez, No. 1:17-CV-0162, 2018
`
`WL 3869894, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted,
`
`collecting cases).
`
`Plaintiff has failed to allege facts (1) specifying the work that is the subject of her
`
`copyright infringement claims, (2) showing her ownership of the copyright at issue, (3) showing
`
`that she preregistered or registered her copyright with the United States Copyright Office, and
`
`(4) showing how and when the defendants infringed her copyright. The Court grants Plaintiff
`
`
`for the work, if required by subsection (a), within three months after its first
`transmission.
`
`17 U.S.C. § 411(c). The Supreme Court has recently stated that:
`[i]n limited circumstances, copyright owners may file an infringement suit before
`undertaking registration. If a copyright owner is preparing to distribute a work of
`a type vulnerable to predistribution infringement – notably, a movie or musical
`composition – the owner may apply for preregistration. The Copyright Office will
`“conduct a limited review” of the application and notify the claimant “[u]pon
`completion of the preregistration.” Once “preregistration . . . has been made,” the
`copyright claimant may institute a suit for infringement. Preregistration, however,
`serves only as “a preliminary step prior to a full registration.” An infringement
`suit brought in reliance on preregistration risks dismissal unless the copyright
`owner applies for registration promptly after the preregistered work’s publication
`or infringement. A copyright owner may also sue for infringement of a live
`broadcast before “registration . . . has been made,” but faces dismissal of her suit
`if she fails to “make registration for the work” within three months of its first
`transmission. Even in these exceptional scenarios, then, the copyright owner must
`eventually pursue registration in order to maintain a suit for infringement.
`
`Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881, 888 (2019) (citations
`omitted).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-09876-LLS Document 5 Filed 06/07/19 Page 4 of 6
`
`leave to file an amended complaint in which she alleges such facts. The Court encourages
`
`Plaintiff to attach to her amended complaint any documentation that shows that she owns the
`
`copyright at issue and that she preregistered or registered it.
`
`B.
`
`Venue and personal jurisdiction
`
`Copyright infringement claims must be brought “in the district in which the defendant or
`
`his agent resides or may be found.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). Courts have found that a defendant
`
`“may be found [for purposes of § 1400(a)] in any district in which he is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction.” Boehm v. Zimprich, No. 13-CV-1031 (PAC), 2013 WL 6569788, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`Dec. 13, 2013) (collecting cases).
`
`Additionally, courts have determined personal jurisdiction for the purpose of copyright
`
`infringement claims by looking to New York State’s long-arm statute, Section 302 of the New
`
`York Civil Practice Law and Rules, which, among other things, permits personal jurisdiction
`
`over a “non-domiciliary . . . who . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts
`
`anywhere to supply goods or services in the state . . . .” N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1); see Boehm,
`
`2013 WL 6569788, at *2; Lipton v. The Nature Co., 781 F. Supp. 1032, 1035 (S.D.N.Y. 1992),
`
`aff’d, 71 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1995).
`
`Plaintiff has failed to provide an address for any of the defendants. Thus, the Court
`
`cannot determine whether this Court is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s copyright infringement
`
`claims by virtue of the defendants’ residencies or presence in this judicial district. Plaintiff has
`
`also failed to allege any other facts showing why this Court is a proper venue for her claims. The
`
`Court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in which she alleges facts
`
`showing why this Court is a proper venue for her claims.3
`
`
`3 The Court notes that while Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of Court
`documents, she has failed to provide the Court with her complete mailing address on Staten
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-09876-LLS Document 5 Filed 06/07/19 Page 5 of 6
`
`C.
`
`Leave to amend
`
`The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to detail her claims. In the
`
`statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts
`
`supporting each claim against each defendant named in the amended complaint. Plaintiff is also
`
`directed to provide the address for any named defendant. To the greatest extent possible,
`
`Plaintiff’s amended complaint must:
`
`a) give the names and titles of all relevant persons;
`
`b) describe all relevant events, stating the facts that support Plaintiff’s claims, including
`what each defendant did or failed to do;
`
`c) give the dates and times of each relevant event or, if not known, the approximate date
`and time of each relevant event;
`
`d) give the location where each relevant event occurred;
`
`e) describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions violated Plaintiff’s rights and
`describe the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and
`
`f) state what relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court, such as money damages, injunctive
`relief, or declaratory relief.
`
`Essentially, the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must tell the Court: who violated
`
`her federally protected rights; what facts show that her federally protected rights were violated;
`
`when such violation occurred; where such violation occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`relief. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the
`
`original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wishes to maintain must be included in the
`
`amended complaint.
`
`
`Island. The Court also notes that Staten Island, which is in Richmond County, New York, does
`not lie within this judicial district – it lies within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C.
`§ 112(c).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-09876-LLS Document 5 Filed 06/07/19 Page 6 of 6
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket and note service on the
`
`docket. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards
`
`set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit
`
`within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,”
`
`and label the document with docket number 18-CV-9876 (LLS). An Amended Complaint form is
`
`attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the
`
`time allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss this
`
`action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
`
`The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
`
`not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
`
`appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant
`
`demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
`
`The Clerk of Court is further directed to docket this order as a “written opinion” within
`
`the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`June 7, 2019
`New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Louis L. Stanton
`U.S.D.J.
`
`
`
`6
`
`