Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fahmy v. Jay-Z, 2:07-cv-05715 CAS (PJWx). (2016)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20160210a92 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2016
Summary: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT CHRISTINA A. SNYDER , District Judge . JUDGMENT Pursuant to the Court's Order dated October 21, 2015 granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Dkt. No. 708, and the Court's Order dated February 1, 2016 entering final judgment, Dkt. No. 729, it is HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED: (1) That final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, be entered in favor of Defendants Jay-Z (aka Shawn Carter), Timothy Mosley (erroneously sue
More

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Court's Order dated October 21, 2015 granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Dkt. No. 708, and the Court's Order dated February 1, 2016 entering final judgment, Dkt. No. 729, it is HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

(1) That final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, be entered in favor of Defendants Jay-Z (aka Shawn Carter), Timothy Mosley (erroneously sued as Timothy Mosely), Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn Music, Chesterchaz Publishing, EMI Blackwood Music, Inc., EMI Music Publishing Ltd., Kenji Kobayashi Music, Machine Shop Recordings, LLC, MTV Networks Enterprises Inc., Nondisclosure Agreement Music, Paramount Home Entertainment, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Rob Bourdon Music, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, Timbaland Productions, Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., Universal Music and Video Distribution, Inc., and Warner Music Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), and against Plaintiff Osama Ahmed Fahmy ("Plaintiff");

(2) That Plaintiff's claims for copyright infringement under the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., and for Unfair Business Practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and common law be, and hereby are, dismissed on the merits in their entirety with prejudice;

(3) That Defendants are the prevailing parties on those claims set forth in paragraph 2; and

(4) That this judgment does not address whether Plaintiff has the right to assert a claim for alleged infringement of his foreign moral rights, if any, in any jurisdiction that recognizes such rights.

The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer