From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCarthy v. Stollman

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Apr 29, 2009
06 Civ. 2613 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2009)

Summary

adopting Report and Recommendation, which held that "disputed issues of fact are not appropriately decided at the dismissal stage" and that "for the purposes of the pending motion, this Court must accept as true the Plaintiffs' version of the facts"

Summary of this case from Sprint Solutions, Inc. v. Sam

Opinion

06 Civ. 2613 (DAB).

April 29, 2009


ADOPTION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman, dated February 26, 2009, recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be denied. The Court has also reviewed Corporate Defendant, Esp-Disk, represented by Bernard Stollman (Esq.), and Bernard Stollman, pro se, Objections to Magistrate Judge's Amended [sic] Report and Recommendation, dated March 15, 2009.

The Court has conducted an independent de novo review of the record herein and, after due consideration, Defendants' objections are without merit.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Judge Freeman, dated February 26, 2009, be and is hereby approved, adopted, and ratified by the Court;

2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

McCarthy v. Stollman

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Apr 29, 2009
06 Civ. 2613 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2009)

adopting Report and Recommendation, which held that "disputed issues of fact are not appropriately decided at the dismissal stage" and that "for the purposes of the pending motion, this Court must accept as true the Plaintiffs' version of the facts"

Summary of this case from Sprint Solutions, Inc. v. Sam

denying motion to dismiss because, "for purposes of the pending motion, this Court must accept as true the Plaintiffs' version of the facts regarding ownership of the copyrights at issue"

Summary of this case from Lee v. Karaoke City
Case details for

McCarthy v. Stollman

Case Details

Full title:JAMES EDWARD McCARTHY, et. al, Plaintiffs, v. BERNARD STOLLMAN and…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Apr 29, 2009

Citations

06 Civ. 2613 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2009)

Citing Cases

Woolcott v. Baratta

Although the notations appear to identify authors other than Woolcott, and the Court seriously questions…

Transcience Corp. v. Big Time Toys, LLC

Courts in the Southern District of New York have held that to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a), a complaint…