Eugene Winfrey v. The YouTube, Inc., et al.
This text of Eugene Winfrey v. The YouTube, Inc., et al. (Eugene Winfrey v. The YouTube, Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□□ nna □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OG DATE FILED: 7/2/26 EUGENE WINFREY, Plaintiff, 26-CV-2249 (VSB) (BCM) -against- ORDER THE YOUTUBE, 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. 5. 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. Two defendants, YouTube LLC and Google LLC, have appeared and moved to dismiss the claims against them. See Dkts. 20-21. 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 3, 2026. 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 plaintiff's 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 YouTube and Google's motion to dismiss) to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit no later than August 3, 2026. If plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint, he must caption the document "Amended Complaint," and label it with the docket number of this action: 26-CV-2252. 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 YouTube and Google'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 2, 2026 □□ BARBARA MOSES sis United States Magistrate Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Eugene Winfrey v. The YouTube, Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-winfrey-v-the-youtube-inc-et-al-nysd-2026.