Lieb v. Korangy Publishing, Inc.

Lieb v. Korangy Publishing, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Andrew M. Lieb
Defendant:	Korangy Publishing, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2015cv00040
Filed:	January 6, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Arthur D. Spatt
Presiding Judge:	A. Kathleen Tomlinson
Nature of Suit:	Copyright
Cause of Action:	17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 14, 2022	Filing 50 ORDER granting 47 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 49 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reasons contained in the attached Memorandum and Order, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, without prejudice, and to the extent that the registration for the HuffPost Article (Certificate of Copyright Registration No. TX-7-932-377) is hereby referred to the United States Copyright Office to advise the Court as to whether it would have refused Plaintiff's registration ha d it known of the information that he knowingly failed to disclose to that office. Defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Section 349 of the New York General Business Law is also granted, with prejudice. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case with leave to re-open. Specifically, counsel are granted leave to re-open this case within one (1) week of receipt of the advice of the United States Copyright Office. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 4/14/2022. (Minerva, Deanna)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 14, 2022

Filing 50 ORDER granting 47 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 49 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reasons contained in the attached Memorandum and Order, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, without prejudice, and to the extent that the registration for the HuffPost Article (Certificate of Copyright Registration No. TX-7-932-377) is hereby referred to the United States Copyright Office to advise the Court as to whether it would have refused Plaintiff's registration ha d it known of the information that he knowingly failed to disclose to that office. Defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Section 349 of the New York General Business Law is also granted, with prejudice. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case with leave to re-open. Specifically, counsel are granted leave to re-open this case within one (1) week of receipt of the advice of the United States Copyright Office. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 4/14/2022. (Minerva, Deanna)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lieb v. Korangy Publishing, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Korangy Publishing, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Andrew M. Lieb
Represented By:	Dennis C Valet
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?