Eugene Winfrey v. Spotify USA Inc., et al.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 7, 2026·No. 1:25-cv-10548·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | DOC #: EUGENE WINFREY, DATE FILED: _ 7/7/26 Plaintiff, 25-CV-10548 (VSB) (BCM) -against- ORDER SPOTIFY USA INC., et al., Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. The above-referenced action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Dkt. 6. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Defendant Spotify USA Inc. (Spotify USA) has appeared and moved to dismiss the claims against it. See Dkt. 10.! As described in greater detail below, plaintiff must either: (1) amend his Complaint or (2) respond to the motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In deference to plaintiff's pro se status, the Court EXTENDS his time to amend the Complaint or respond to the motion to dismiss until August 6, 2026.

' As Spotify USA notes in its memorandum of law, see Dkt. 11 at 1 n.1, plaintiff has separately named "Spotify" as a defendant in this action. On March 27, 2026, the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Judge, issued an order of service directing the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on Spotify USA, but noted that as to defendant Spotify, which is "located in Sweden,” the "costs and logistics of . . . translation" into Swedish of any documents to be served on Spotify "will be the responsibility of the plaintiff." Dkt. 7 at 2. The docket does not reflect any proof of service on defendant Spotify.

Pending Motion to Dismiss To state a plausible copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must establish (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) infringement of that copyright by the defendant. See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Servs. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604

F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2010). As to the second element, District Courts within our Circuit require a plaintiff to allege "by what acts and during what time the defendant infringed the copyright." Conan Props. Int'l LLC v. Sanchez, 2018 WL 3869894, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2018) (quoting Energy Intelligence Grp., Inc. v. Jefferies, LLC, 101 F. Supp. 3d 332, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)). Here, plaintiff has attached a copy of his federal copyright registration for the lyrics of a work entitled "Because I Need Your Love." See Compl. at ECF p. 8. This may satisfy the first element of a copyright infringement claim, for pleading purposes. See Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101, 109 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that registered copyrights are presumed valid). However, plaintiff has not explained when, where, or how any of the defendants copied (e.g., reproduced or distributed copies of) the work, much less alleged that such reproduction was not

authorized. Unless he amends his Complaint to include such information, it will likely be dismissed. See Winfrey v. Boomplay Music, 2026 WL 775353 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2026) (holding that a similar complaint, filed by plaintiff against Boomplay Music and others, failed to state a plausible copyright infringement claim because it did not allege facts showing "how each Defendant infringed on Plaintiff's copyright," and granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint). Amendment If plaintiff chooses to amend his Complaint, he must provide specific, concrete facts supporting his copyright infringement claims against each defendant he has sued. Because plaintiffs Amended Complaint will completely replace (not supplement) his original Complaint, any facts or claims that plaintiff wants to include from the original Complaint must be repeated in the Amended Complaint. Conclusion Plaintiff must submit his Amended Complaint (or, in the alternative, his papers in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss) to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit no later than August 6, 2026. If plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint, he must caption the document "Amended Complaint," and label it with the docket number of this action: 25-CV-10548. A form with the appropriate case caption is attached to this order for plaintiff's convenience. If he fails to either amend his Complaint or respond to defendant's motion to dismiss, his claims may be dismissed. Plaintiff is reminded that he may receive court documents electronically (rather than waiting for them to be mailed) by completing and submitting a Consent to Electronic Service form, available at: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-electronic-service-pro-se-cases. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff, at his address of record: P.O. Box 45, 118 E 124th St., New York, NY 10035. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED. July 7, 2026 Coens BARBARA MOSES sis United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK E ugene Winfrey

25 10548 Write the full name of each plaintiff. _____CV_______________ (Include case number if one has been assigned) -against- AMENDED COMPLAINT S potify USA Inc.

Do you want a jury trial? Spotify ☐ Yes ☐ No

Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more space, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section II.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Eugene Winfrey v. Spotify USA Inc., et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Eugene Winfrey v. Spotify USA Inc., et al. (Eugene Winfrey v. Spotify USA Inc., et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related