#### Venus DODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JRL MUSIC, INC., Gambi Music, JR Foursome Music, Estate of Joseph Robinson, Jr., Estate of Rhondo Robinson, Universal Music Publishing Group, DBA Songs of Universal, Sugar Hill Music, Defendants-Appellees, Broadcast Music, Inc., Defendant.

No. 16-3087

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 22, 2017

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Lita Rosario, Lita Rosario, PLLC, Washington, DC.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: James P. Cinque, Cinque *&*Cinque, PC, New York, NY.

PRESENT: José A Cabranes, Richard C. Wesley, Circuit Judges. Victor Marrero, District Judge.*

*

 Judge Victor Marrero, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Venus Dodson appeals the July 11, 2016 judgment of the district court, dismissing her federal copyright claims and state law restitution, accounting, conversion and breach of contract claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On appeal, the Appellant argues that the district court erred in concluding that her copyright claims arose in 2010 and are barred by a three-year statute of limitations. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.1

*8* * *

We hold that Dodson’s copyright claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations primarily for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. *See Dodson v. JRL Music, Inc.,*No. 15-cv-06672 (July 11, 2016) (“District Court Opinion”). Dodson argues that her ownership was initially recognized and only later repudiated, thus the statute of limitations commenced more recently. *See Gary Friedrich Enters., LLC v. Marvel Characters, Inc.,*716 F.3d 302, 317 (2d Cir. 2013). We disagree. As the district court cogently explained:

> [E]ven if plaintiffs co-ownership was initially recognized and only later repudiated, the complaint describes that plaintiff became aware of the repudiation, as early as 2009, and her knowledge was surely established by the time that she initiated a dispute with BMI in 2010 about its failure to pay her royalties. The complaint states that “[i]n or about August or September 2010, Plaintiffs further investigation at the Copyright office revealed that several of the Dodson Compositions were falsely and erroneously registered with [ ] the Copyright Office under the name ‘Venice Dodson’ rather than ‘Venus Dodson.’ ” In September of 2010 plaintiff alleges that BMI updated the song registrations but failed to pay back royalties.... Thus, as explicitly stated in plaintiffs complaint, she became aware of the Robinson Defendants’ repudiation of her ownership interest in 2010.

District Court Opinion at 3-4. Dodson’s knowledge was therefore clearly established by the time that she initiated a dispute with Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) in 2010 about its failure to pay her royalties. Accordingly, her copyright claims are time-barred.

By extension, Dodson’s state law claims are also untimely. *See Merchant v. Levy,*92 F.3d 51, 56 (2nd Cir. 1996), *cert denied,*519 U.S. 1108, 117 S.Ct. 943, 136 L.Ed.2d 833 (1997) (“[Plaintiffs claiming to be coauthors are time-barred three years after accrual of their claim from seeking a declaration of copyright co-ownership rights and any remedies that would flow from such a declaration.”).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and upon independent review of the record, we conclude that Dodson’s claims are untimely. Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal.

1

. Defendants argue that the notice of appeal was untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). Dodson argues that this was a scrivener’s error and she intended to file a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment, which would have extended the time to file a notice of appeal. We thus have jurisdiction over this claim.