Songbyrd, Inc. v. Estate of
Grossman case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
23 F. Supp. 2d 219
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant estate filed a
motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on the
ground that plaintiff musician's successor in interest's action was
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The musician's
successor in interest had filed an action related to the possession,
ownership, and usage of several master recordings of performances
made by the musician. The action was transferred to the court by
another district court.
FACTS: The estate had physical custody of several master recordings of musical performances made by the musician, despite numerous prior requests by representatives of the musician to secure the return of the tapes. In 1986, the estate licensed certain of the master recordings to a production company. In 1987 and in 1991, albums were released of the musician's music. In 1995, the musician's successor in interest filed an action in state court against the estate. The action was removed to a Louisiana district court, which concluded personal jurisdiction was lacking and transferred the action to this court. The estate then filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on the ground that the musician's successor in interest's action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
ANALYSIS:
The court granted the motion. The court held that (1) disposition of the case was governed by New York law; (2) the action was governed by N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214(3), as the musician's successor in interest's action was for conversion; and that (3) the action was time barred under § 214(3), as any claim for conversion accrued no later than in 1986.
CONCLUSION: The court granted the estate's motion for summary judgment.
FACTS: The estate had physical custody of several master recordings of musical performances made by the musician, despite numerous prior requests by representatives of the musician to secure the return of the tapes. In 1986, the estate licensed certain of the master recordings to a production company. In 1987 and in 1991, albums were released of the musician's music. In 1995, the musician's successor in interest filed an action in state court against the estate. The action was removed to a Louisiana district court, which concluded personal jurisdiction was lacking and transferred the action to this court. The estate then filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on the ground that the musician's successor in interest's action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
ANALYSIS:
The court granted the motion. The court held that (1) disposition of the case was governed by New York law; (2) the action was governed by N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214(3), as the musician's successor in interest's action was for conversion; and that (3) the action was time barred under § 214(3), as any claim for conversion accrued no later than in 1986.
CONCLUSION: The court granted the estate's motion for summary judgment.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment