McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc.
1:22-cv-01138
S.D.N.Y.Jun 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Shauna McKenzie-Morris, a pro se litigant, sued multiple affiliated music and publishing companies for breach of contract, copyright infringement, and fraud related to her music royalties and compositions.
- The court previously dismissed her copyright infringement, fraud, and accounting claims; only certain breach of contract claims survived.
- Surviving breach claims are limited by contract provisions and statutes of limitations, per several court orders, including summary judgment rulings.
- McKenzie-Morris sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration of a recent summary judgment order (SMJ II Order) that further narrowed her claims.
- The SMJ II Order held that English law governs the main agreement (2007 SWA), upholding an incontestability provision and enforcing a six-year statute of limitations.
- The court found that Plaintiff is trying to relitigate issues, introduce new breach theories not pleaded in her complaint, or revisit already-dismissed claims; her motion for reconsideration was therefore denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for reconsideration | The court overlooked facts or law; old issues merit rehearing | No overlooked facts/legal authority; Plaintiff relitigates decided issues | Denied; no grounds for reconsideration |
| Scope of breach of contract claims | Surviving claims should include additional/unpled theories and issues with royalty accounting and registrations | Only claims in the TAC, as limited by prior rulings and contract/statute provisions, survive | Limited to contract claims as already defined; no new breach theories allowed |
| Effect of contract's incontestability clause and statute of limitations | Clause/statute should not bar Plaintiff’s claims over royalties or unregistered works | Provisions valid; bar untimely or objected claims per English law | Enforced; claims are narrowed per those contract/statutory bars |
| Attempt to introduce claims regarding alleged fraudulent/unauthorized licensing | Such agreements support broader theories including fraud and breach | Those claims were already dismissed and cannot be revived via motion or letter | Dismissed; issues not part of remaining claims nor properly pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Analytical Survs., Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (motions for reconsideration are not for relitigating old issues)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration requires showing overlooked data/decisions that could alter result)
- Green v. Phillips, [citation="374 F. App'x 86"] (2d Cir. 2010) (mere disagreement with judgment is not grounds for reconsideration)