Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-15-01164/USCOURTS-ca2-15-01164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 

---

1

15-1164-cv 

Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. 

1

2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

4

5 August Term, 2015 

6

7 Argued: February 2, 2016 

8

9 Question Certified: April 13, 2016 

10

11 Certified Question Answered: December 20, 2016 

12

13 Decided: February 16, 2017 

14

15 Docket No. 15-1164-cv 

16

17

18 FLO & EDDIE, INC., a California Corporation, 

19 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

20

21 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

22

23 – v. – 

24

25 SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., a Delaware Corporation, 

26

27 Defendant-Appellant, 

28

29 DOES, 1 THROUGH 10, 

30

31 Defendants. 

32

33

34 Before: CALABRESI, CHIN, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges. 

35

36 Defendant-Appellant Sirius XM Radio, Inc., appeals from the November 14, 2014 

37 and December 12, 2014 orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District 

38 of New York (McMahon, J.) denying its motions, respectively, for summary judgment and 

39 for reconsideration in connection with Plaintiff-Appellee Flo & Eddie, Inc.’s copyright 

40 infringement suit. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 13-cv-5784 (CM), 2014 WL 

41 7178134 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2014) (denial of motion for reconsideration); Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. 

42 Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (denial of motion for summary 

43 judgment). We previously concluded that the appeal raised a significant and unresolved 

44 issue of New York law that is determinative of this appeal: Is there a right of public 

Case 15-1164, Document 228, 02/16/2017, 1970447, Page1 of 6
2

1 performance for creators of pre-1972 sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what 

2 is the nature and scope of that right? 

3 We certified this question to the New York Court of Appeals. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. 

4 Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 821 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016). The Court of Appeals accepted 

5 certification and responded that New York common law does not recognize a right of public 

6 performance for creators of pre-1972 sound recordings. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, 

7 Inc., 2016 WL 7349183 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016). 

8 In light of this ruling, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion 

9 for summary judgment and REMAND with instructions to grant Appellant’s motion for 

10 summary judgment and to dismiss the case with prejudice. 

11 

12

13 HARVEY GELLER (Henry Gradstein, Maryann R. 

14 Marzano, on the brief), GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C., 

15 Los Angeles, CA; (Evan S. Cohen, on the brief), Los 

16 Angeles, CA; Michael Gervais, Arun S. Subramanian, 

17 SUSMAN GODFREY LLP, New York, NY; Robert 

18 Rimberg, GOLDBERG RIMBERG & WEG PLLC, for 

19 Plaintiff-Appellee 

20

21 DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (Cassandra L. Seto, on the 

22 brief), O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Los Angeles, CA; 

23 (Johnathan D. Hacker, on the brief), O’MELVENY &

24 MYERS LLP, Washington, DC; for Defendant-Appellant 

25

26 BRANDON BUTLER, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY 

27 WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW, Washington, DC, for 

28 Amici Curiae Law Professors Gary Pulsinelli, Julie Ross, 

29 and Peter Jaszi, in support of Defendant-Appellant 

30

31 EUGENE VOLOKH, UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW, Los 

32 Angeles, CA, for Amici Curiae Howard Abrams, Brandon 

33 Butler, Michael Carrier, Michael Carroll, Ralph 

34 Clifford, Brian Frye, William Gallagher, Eric Goldman, 

35 James Grimmelmann, Yvette Liebesman, Brian Love, 

36 Tyler Ochoa, David Olson, David Post, Michael Risch, 

37 Matthew Sag, Rebecca Tushnet, and David Welkowitz, 

38 in support of Defendant-Appellant

39

40 MITCHELL STOLTZ, VERA RANIERI, Electronic 

41 Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA, for Amicus 

Case 15-1164, Document 228, 02/16/2017, 1970447, Page2 of 6
3

1 Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support of 

2 Defendant-Appellant 

3

4 R. BRUCE RICH, BENJAMIN E. MARKS, 

5 GREGORY SILBERT, TODD LARSON, KAMI 

6 LIZARRAGA, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New 

7 York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Pandora Media, Inc., in 

8 support of Defendant-Appellant 

9

10 SHERWIN SIY, JOHN BERGMAYER, RAZA 

11 PANJWANI, Public Knowledge, Washington, DC, for 

12 Amicus Curiae Public Knowledge, in support of 

13 Defendant-Appellant

14

15 STEPHEN B. KINNAIRD, PAUL HASTINGS LLP, 

16 Washington, DC; RICK KAPLAN, National 

17 Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC; for 

18 Amicus Curiae National Association of Broadcasters, in 

19 support of Defendant-Appellant 

20

21 ADAM R. BIALEK, STEPHEN J. BARRETT, 

22 WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, 

23 New York, NY; DAVID L. DONOVAN, New York 

24 State Broadcasters Association, Inc., Albany, NY; for 

25 Amicus Curiae New York State Broadcasters Association, 

26 Inc., in support of Defendant-Appellant 

27

28

29

30 PER CURIAM: 

31 On September 3, 2013, Flo & Eddie, Inc. (“Appellee”), a California corporation that 

32 asserts it owns the recordings of “The Turtles,” a well-known rock band with a string of hits 

33 in the 1960s, sued Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (“Appellant”), a Delaware corporation that is the 

34 largest radio and internet-radio broadcaster in the United States. The suit was brought on 

35 behalf of itself and a class of owners of pre-1972 recordings; it asserted claims for common36 law copyright infringement and unfair competition under New York law. In particular, 

37 Appellee alleged that Appellant infringed Appellee’s copyright in The Turtles’ recordings by 

Case 15-1164, Document 228, 02/16/2017, 1970447, Page3 of 6
4

1 broadcasting and making internal reproductions of the recordings (e.g., library, buffer and 

2 cache copies) to facilitate its broadcasts. 

3 In due course, Appellant moved for summary judgment on two grounds. Appellant 

4 contended first that there is no public-performance right in pre-1972 recordings under New 

5 York copyright law, and hence that its internal reproductions of these recordings were 

6 permissible fair use. Second, Appellant argued that a state law public performance right, if 

7 recognized, would be barred by the Dormant Commerce Clause. On November 14, 2014, 

8 the District Court (McMahon, J.) denied this motion. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, 

9 Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). 

10 On the first issue, the court concluded that New York does afford a common-law 

11 right of public performance to copyright holders, and that Appellant’s internal reproductions 

12 were correspondingly not fair use. Id. at 344-46. On the second issue, the court found that 

13 the recognition of a performance right did not implicate the Dormant Commerce Clause. It 

14 noted that, pursuant to Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U.S. (3 Otto) 99 (1876), such a right did not 

15 constitute a “regulation” of commerce. Flo & Eddie, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d at 351–53. 

16 Soon after, Appellant, with new counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the 

17 November 14, 2014 order. In the alternative, it asked the District Court to certify its 

18 summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal. The District Court denied Appellant’s 

19 motion for reconsideration, Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 13-cv-5784, 2014 

20 WL 7178134 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2014), but did certify both the summary judgment and 

21 reconsideration orders for interlocutory appeal, Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 

22 13-cv-5784, 2015 WL 585641 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2015). 

Case 15-1164, Document 228, 02/16/2017, 1970447, Page4 of 6
5

1 Appellant then petitioned us to permit the interlocutory appeal, which we did. Flo & 

2 Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 15-cv-497, 2015 WL 3478159 (2d Cir. May 27, 

3 2015). After extensive briefing and oral argument, we concluded that the appeal raised a 

4 significant and unresolved issue of New York law that is determinative of this appeal: Is 

5 there a right of public performance for creators of pre-1972 sound recordings under New 

6 York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right? 

7 Accordingly, we certified this question to the New York Court of Appeals. Flo & 

8 Eddie, Inc., 821 F.3d 265. The Court of Appeals accepted certification, and on December 

9 20, 2016, responded that New York common law does not recognize a right of public 

10 performance for creators of pre-1972 sound recordings. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, 

11 Inc., 2016 WL 7349183 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016). 

12 Following the Court of Appeals’ answer, we ordered the parties to submit letter briefs 

13 addressing the effect of the Court of Appeals’ decision on the appeal before this court. In its 

14 letter brief, Appellee argued that the Court of Appeals “did not resolve [Appellant’s] liability 

15 for unauthorized copying of [Appellee’s] recordings and engaging in unfair competition by 

16 publicly performing those copies for profit, which the District Court had identified as 

17 separate and independent grounds for finding [Appellant] liable.” Letter Brief for Appellee, 

18 Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 821 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016) (No. 15-1164), ECF 

19 No. 215. 

20 In our opinion certifying the question to the Court of Appeals, however, we noted 

21 and held that 

22 The fair-use analysis applicable to this copying . . . is bound up 

23 with whether the ultimate use of the internal copies is 

24 permissible. As a result, the certified question is determinative of 

25 Appellee’s copying claims . . . . Similarly, Appellee’s unfairCase 15-1164, Document 228, 02/16/2017, 1970447, Page5 of 6
6

1 competition claim depends upon the resolution of the certified 

2 question. 

3

4 Flo & Eddie, Inc., 821 F.3d at 270 n.4 (emphasis added). 

5 The answer to the certified question being determinative of the other claims, we 

6 REVERSE the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for summary judgment and 

7 REMAND to that court with instructions to grant Appellant’s motion for summary 

8 judgment and to dismiss the case with prejudice. 

Case 15-1164, Document 228, 02/16/2017, 1970447, Page6 of 6