Timothy Ricardo Regisford v. Lynn Lockamy; Lynn Lockamy v. Universal Music Group, Inc., Polygram Publishing, Inc., Universal Music Operations Limited, Universal Music Publishing Limited, Polydor Limited, Polydor Records a/k/a Universal Polydor, and Belters Only Productions Limited

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-05928
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK nnn nen ne nn nee eine ne nen nance cee semen nenennin TIMOTHY RICARDO REGISFORD, : Plaintiff : ORDER DENYING : DEFENDANT’S - apainst - : MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION LYNN LOCKAMY, : Defendant. : entice nee ee □□□ ne nee euetnnnnnennnnennn KX nen eee □□□ een enaennenenn LYNN LOCKAMY, : Third-Party Plaintiff : 23 Civ. 5928 (AKH)

- against - : UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., POLYGRAM : PUBLISHING, INC., UNIVERSAL MUSIC : OPERATIONS LIMITED, UNIVERSAL MUSIC : PUBLISHING LIMITED, POLYDOR LIMITED : POLYDOR RECORDS a/k/a UNIVERSAL : POLYDOR, and BELTERS ONLY PRODUCTIONS LIMITED, Third-Party Defendants. : teen te nernern en einen □□□ nee ne ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: I deny Defendant Lynn Lockamy’s motion for reconsideration of my August 25, 2025 Opinion and Order granting the Third Party Defendants’ motion to dismiss Lockamy’s third- party complaint (ECF No. 171). “A motion for reconsideration is not a motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved.” In re Facebook Inc., IPO Sec, & Derivative Litig., 43 F. Supp. 3d 369, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Moreover, “the standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied

unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2012). Here, Lockamy fails to meet these strictures. Instead, she argues issues raised-—-and rejected—in her opposition to the previous motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. As a threshold matter, Lockamy filed her third-party complaint 299 days after she filed her answer, and without leave of court. See Regisford v. Lockamy, 23 Civ, 5928, 2025 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 164716, at *5,n.2 (S.D.N-Y. Aug. 25, 2025); Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1) (defendant may not file third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving answer without leave of court), This alone is a sufficient ground to dismiss Lockamy’s third-party complaint. See, e.g., Jaigobind v. Carapezzi, 22 Civ. 1099, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121814, at *15 (D. Conn. July 11, 2024); Office Create Corp. v. lst Playable Productions, LLC, 23 Civ. 91, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39799, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2024). On the merits, Lockamy’s motion fails, too. As J explained in my Opinion, a copyright “ownership claim accrues only once, when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been put on inquiry as to the existence of a right.” Regisford, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164716, at *6 (quoting Kwan vy. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224, 228 (2d Cir. 2011)); see also 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (providing for a three-year statute of limitations after the accrual of a copyright claim). Here, by Lockamy’s own admission, she first knew about this ownership dispute more than a decade ago, when she discovered that Regisford infringed on the copyright to the underlying composition without her permission, and when Lockamy took affirmative steps to demand that Regisford □ cease such infringements. Thus, since the ownership dispute arose a decade before Belters Only’s subsequent infringement of the underlying composition in 2021, her copyright claims as to the Third-Party Defendants are time-barred, and thus are not cognizable, See Regisford, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164716, at *6-8. Accordingly, I deny Lockamy’s motion for reconsideration.

The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 176. SO ORDERED, Jf; A iy Dated: September 30, 2025 LY, NAL ae New York, New York . 7 FANN Kk. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge