Overview
A Leason Ellis Case
On behalf of a non-profit dedicated to preserving the legacy of Paul Rudolph, the late famed architect, Leason Ellis defeated a countersuit at the pleading stage and, in the process, prevented a former Board member and his copycat organization from reclaiming copyrights that Rudolph dedicated to the public.
The Paul Rudolph Foundation v. Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation et al., No. 20 Civ. 8180 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.).
In a scathing 24-page opinion, Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York agreed with Leason Ellis that the defendants had not only failed to plead eight of nine affirmative defences plausibly but also each element of their copyright infringement counterclaim. While observing the defendants’ repeated “failure to proofread their pleading” and improper usage of “upon information and belief” pleading, Judge McMahon further observed that the defendants’ counterclaim was still conclusory, internally inconsistent, failed to give notice, and otherwise implausible based on public records, among other things. The defendants’ argument that an Article III judge should decline to take judicial notice of publicly-available government records was also not well-received.
Critical to this early victory was Leason Ellis’ ability to present judicially noticeable evidence in the form of pictures from the Library of Congress that disproved the defendant’s specious ownership allegations. This crucial evidence showed that certain Rudolph materials that the defendants were claiming copyright in were already in the public domain, rendering the defendant’s copyright registration “totally ineffective” and “not worth the paper on which it is written,” according to Judge McMahon.
Judge McMahon dismissed the defendants’ claims with prejudice, further denying leave to amend because, among other things, the defendants failed to submit a proposed second amended pleading. This failure eliminated the Court’s ability to evaluate the futility of further amendments.
