Rodney H Dixon v. NPG Music Publishing, LLC et al
| Rodney Herachio Dixon |
| Does, NPG Music Publishing, LLC, NPG Records, Inc and The Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson |
| 5:2017cv00363 |
| February 24, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| David T. Bristow |
| Otis D. Wright |
| Copyright |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
52
JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On June 6, 2017, the Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss without leave to amend and Defendants motion to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (ECF Nos. 30, 39.) 1. Plaintiff shall recover nothing from Defe ndants, and his claims against Defendants are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice; 2. Defendants shall recover costs from Plaintiff as evidenced by a bill of costs. 3. Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. 4. Plaintiff, or any person acting on hi s behalf, must first obtain written authorization from a magistrate judge before initiating a new action against Comerica Bank and Trust, N.A. as Personal Representative for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson; NPG Music Publishing, LLC; NPG Records, Inc.; or any other entity controlled by the Personal Representative that is related to (1) a contract, of any type, to which Prince was a party, or (2) any of the 965 songs included in the April 4, 2014 transfer of rights (the Exclusive Songwriter Ag reement). Plaintiff will be allowed to file a complaint if a magistrate judge finds that the proposed complaint is not frivolous and not duplicative of any claim Plaintiff has already filed in state or federal court. If the magistrate judge allows th e filing but determines, based on the pleadings and any evidence provided by the parties, that there is no reasonable probability Plaintiff will prevail in the litigation, the magistrate may order Plaintiff to first post security in an appropriate amount to be determined by the magistrate. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc) .Modified on 6/6/2017. (lc).
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 13 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 5, 2017, sixteen days later. (ECF No. 26.) Rule 15(a)(1) allows Plaintiff to file an amended complaint once, as a matter of course, within twenty-one days of service with a Rule 12(b) motion. Therefore, Plaintiffs amended complaint was proper. As the pending motion to dismiss was based on a complaint that is no longer operative, the motion is DENIED as MOOT. (lc). Modified on 4/7/2017 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER DISMISSING THE ESTATE OF PRINCE ROGERS NELSON AS A DEFENDANT AND DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST THE ESTATE 21 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Defendant filed this lawsuit on February 24, 2017, naming The Estate of Prince R ogers Nelson as a Defendant. In California, a trust is not a legal entity and has no capacity to sue or be sued. The Court sua sponte DISMISSES The Estate as a Defendant. Because the Court dismisses The Estate as a Defendant, it DENIES Plaintiffs pen ding request for entry of default against the Estate as MOOT. To sue the Estate, Plaintiff must sue the administrator, executor, or trustee of the estate in its representative capacity and properly serve that entity. (Footnote 1: Defendants NPG Music Publishing, LLC and NPG Records Inc. see ECF no. 19). (lc). Modified on 4/4/2017. (lc).
|
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
