Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith
714 F.3d 932
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Tilmon wrote the song Smart in 1974 and registered it with the Copyright Office.
- Tilmon assigned Smart to Bridgeport in 1976; renewal and later registrations list Bridgeport or Tilmon-Jones inconsistently as owner.
- In 1997 Smith released You & Me, alleged to infringe Smart by sampling; litigation followed in 2003 in the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Default judgments were entered in 2004–2005 against Reel Life Productions and Smith for infringement; judgments were recorded in 2005.
- Tilmon-Jones, Tilmon’s widow, sought Rule 60(b) relief in 2011, arguing she owned the renewal rights as of 2003 and that Plaintiffs lacked standing.
- The district court denied relief, citing lack of standing and, separately, a prior settlement release barring Tilmon-Jones’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tilmon-Jones may seek Rule 60(b) relief as a nonparty | Tilmon-Jones has rights to renewal and is closely connected to the judgment | Rule 60(b) relief requires party or legal representative status; Tilmon-Jones lacks standing | Tilmon-Jones has no standing as nonparty and cannot obtain Rule 60(b) relief |
| Whether any exception allows a nonparty to seek Rule 60(b) relief | Privity or strong effects on her interests justify standing | Privity not established; interests not strongly affected | No applicable exception; no standing for Tilmon-Jones |
| Whether the settlement release bars Tilmon-Jones’s Rule 60(b) motion | Release did not encompass this renewal-right dispute | Release broadly releases claims that could have been brought regarding the District Court Action | Release bars the Rule 60(b) motion |
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion was timely | Constructive notice and ongoing litigation permitted later filing | Motion filed nearly seven years after judgment; untimely | Motion untimely |
| Whether the district court properly rejected other bases for dismissal | Standards and fraud claims were properly argued | Rules and release foreclose relief; arguments lacked merit | Affirmed dismissal; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC, 672 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2012) (renewal copyright interests pass by operation of law)
- Dassault Systemes, SA v. Childress, 663 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2011) (standing and timing considerations in copyright actions)
- Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 443 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2006) (nonparties may be 'strongly affected' and have limited Rule 60(b) standing in narrow circumstances)
- Dunlop v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 672 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1982) (flexible standing in Rule 60(b) contexts when connected to the litigation)
- Kem Mfg. Corp. v. Wilder, 817 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1987) (nonparties and standing under Rule 60(b) debated; privity limits)
- Southerland v. Irons, 628 F.2d 978 (6th Cir. 1980) (fraud-on-the-court relief under Rule 60(b) by nonparties permitted in some contexts)
- Taggart v. United States, 880 F.2d 867 (6th Cir. 1989) (release scope controls breadth of settlement releases)
- Kellogg Co. v. Sabhlok, 471 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2006) (language of a release governs its breadth)