Brunswick Records Corp. v. Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd.
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 30512(U) (Brunswick Records Corp. v. Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Brunswick Records Corp. v Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd. 2025 NY Slip Op 30512(U) February 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 150489/2024 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 150489/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice - - - - -----------------------X INDEX NO. 150489/2024 BRUNSWICK RECORDS CORP., EXUMA MUSIC MOTION DATE 03/27/2024 PUBLISHING, LLC
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
- V -
LASTRADA ENTERTAINMENT CO. LTD. D/B/A DECISION + ORDER ON LASTRADA MUSIC, STEPHEN MOELIS, MOTION
Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------- -----X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of November 19, 2024,
Defendants Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd. d/b/a Lastrada Music and Stephen Moelis'
(collectively "Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Brunswick Records Corp. and Exuma
Music Publishing, LLC's (collectively "Plaintiffs") Complaint, and seeking sanctions against
Plaintiffs, is granted in part and denied in part.
This action, which is based on a dispute over copyright ownership of a composition called
"Vinzerelli's Bounce" (the "Composition") is related to a predecessor action in the Southern
District of New York captioned Brunswick Records Corp. v. Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd.,
Case No. 23-cv-0100 (the "Prior Action"). In the Prior Action, which alleged copyright
infringement, United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint for
failure to state a claim (see Brunswick Records Corp. v Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd., 2023
WL 3010967 [SDNY 2023 ]). Judge Kaplan ruled that Plaintiffs failed to allege copyright
infringement because Plaintiffs made no allegations regarding "copying" of the copyrighted work,
150489/2024 BRUNSWICK RECORDS CORP. ET AL vs. LASTRADA ENTERTAINMENT CO. LTD. Page 1 of 4 D/8/A LASTRADA MUSIC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 150489/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2025
and instead alleged that Defendants falsely represented that they were the owners of the
copyrighted work. Although Judge Kaplan provided Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the
Complaint prior to issuing his decision, Plaintiffs represented "there are no additional facts that
Plaintiff will allege in any amended pleading." Judge Kaplan awarded Defendants legal fees of
$22,040.00 because Plaintiffs' "position in the lawsuit was close to being frivolous" (see
Brunswick Records Corp. v Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd., 2023 WL 8703705 at *3 [SDNY
2023]).
After the Prior Action concluded, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking declaratory judgment
that Plaintiffs are the owners of the copyright of the Composition. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
have tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs' copyright by making false representations to third parties
and seek damages. Defendants have responded with a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing this
action should be dismissed pursuant to res judicata, the statute of limitations, and failure to state
claim. Defendants also seek sanctions.
This Court agrees that Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred pursuant to res judicata and the
Complaint is dismissed. As held by the Court of Appeals, a valid final judgment bars future actions
between the same parties once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, and "all other claims arising
out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories
or if seeking a different remedy." (see Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 37 NY3d 107, 111 [2021]
citing O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353,357 [1981]). This rule exists "to ensure finality,
prevent vexatious litigation and promote judicial economy" (Xiao Yang Chen v Fischer, 6 NY3d
94, 100 [2005]). To determine whether two claims arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions, the Court must determine whether they '" are related in time, space, origin, or
motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit
150489/2024 BRUNSWICK RECORDS CORP. ET AL vs. LASTRADA ENTERTAINMENT CO. LTD. Page 2 of 4 D/8/A LASTRADA MUSIC ET AL Motion No. 001
2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 150489/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2025
conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage" (Xiao, supra at 100-101
quoting Restatement [Second] of Judgments §24[2]).
The Complaints in this action and the Prior Action are nearly identical save for the different
theories of recovery alleged. This action and the Prior Action clearly arise from the same
transaction or series of transactions as they both deal with the ownership dispute over the copyright
to the Composition. They are nearly identical in time, space,, origin, and motivation, and these
claims should have been included in the Complaint in the Prior Action. Although Judge Kaplan
provided Plaintiffs with an opportunity to allege tortious interference and seek declaratory relief
as to who owns the copyright in the Prior Action, Plaintiffs explicitly waived this opportunity.
The sole authority Plaintiffs rely on to avoid application of res judicata, which is a rarely
cited trial court decision from 1985, is neither controlling on this Court nor persuasive, especially
in lieu of numerous other more recent and binding decisions which compel this Court to dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint (see, e.g. 214 Lafayette House LLC v Akasa Holdings LLC, 227 AD3d 75,
79 [1st Dept 2024]; Gulf LNG Energy, LLC v Eni Sp.A., 232 AD3d 183, 193-194 [1st Dept 2024];
Platon v Linden-Marshall Contracting, Inc., 176 AD3d 409 [1st Dept 2019]; see also Paramount
Pictures Corp. v Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 141 AD3d 464, 467-468 [1st Dept 2016]). Because the
Complaint is dismissed on res Judi cata grounds, the Court need not reach Defendants' statute of
limitations or CPLR 321 l(a)(7) arguments.
In an exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to issue sanctions against Plaintiffs. The
instant litigation was not protracted or lengthy and was disposed of on a simple motion to dismiss.
However, Plaintiffs are warned that should they engage in repeat litigation over their now twice
dismissed claims, the Court may issue sanctions in subsequent litigation.
150489/2024 BRUNSWICK RECORDS CORP. ET AL vs. LASTRADA ENTERTAINMENT CO. LTD. Page 3 of 4 D/B/A LASTRADA MUSIC ET AL Motion No. 001
3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 150489/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2025
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that Defendants Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd. d/b/a Lastrada Music and
Stephen Moelis ' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Brunswick Records Corp. and Exuma Music
Publishing, LLC' s Complaint, and seeking sanctions against Plaintiffs, is granted in part and
denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants Lastrada Entertainment Co. Ltd.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 30512(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunswick-records-corp-v-lastrada-entertainment-co-ltd-nysupctnewyork-2025.