Dolores F. DiBella (DD 9637) 

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 

Eleven Times Square 

New York, N.Y. 10036 

Tel: (212) 969-3000 

Fax: (212) 969-2900 

ddibella@proskauer.com 

Attorney for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 

ANTHONY STOKES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOHN STEPHENS a/k/a JOHN LEGEND, SONY 

MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, COLUMBIA 

RECORDS, GETTING OUT OUR DREAMS, 

INC. d/b/a G.O.O.D. Music, JOHN DOES 1-20, 

fictitious persons, and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-

20, fictitious entities, 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 

 CASE NO.: 2:11-cv-03849 

 (SDW) (MCA) 

 ECF CASE

AMENDED ANSWER AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

 Defendants JOHN STEPHENS a/k/a JOHN LEGEND (“Legend”), SONY MUSIC 

ENTERTAINMENT and COLUMBIA RECORDS (collectively “Sony Music,” as Columbia 

Records has been erroneously sued as a separate legal entity), and GETTING OUT OUR 

DREAMS, INC. d/b/a G.O.O.D. Music (“GM,” erroneously sued herein as GETTING OUT 

OUR DREAMS MUSIC) (all collectively, the “Defendants”), by their attorneys Proskauer Rose 

LLP, as and for their amended answer to the allegations set forth in the Verified Complaint 

(“Complaint”) of ANTHONY STOKES (“Plaintiff”), hereby state as follows: 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 70
2 

1) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 of the 

Complaint. 

2) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 2 of the 

Complaint. 

3) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 3 of the 

Complaint. 

4) The Defendants admit that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this 

matter. The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether 

this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter, and on that basis denies the same. 

5) The Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 

6) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same, except as follows: Defendant Legend admits that he is a citizen of the State of New York; 

Defendant Sony Music denies that it is a New York company but admits that it has a principal 

place of business in New York; Defendant Sony Music also denies that Columbia Records is a 

subsidiary label of Sony Music but admits that Columbia Records has a principal place of 

business in New York; and Defendant GM denies that it is a New York company but admits that 

it has a principal place of business in New York. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 71
3 

7) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same, except as follows: Defendant Sony Music admits that the allegedly infringing recording 

was promoted, marketed and sold in New Jersey and that Sony Music rents an office located in 

New Jersey. 

8) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

9) Defendant Legend admits that he is a GRAMMY Award winning recording 

artist who resides in New York and recorded the sound recording entitled “Maxine’s Interlude”. 

Defendant Legend denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies the 

same. Defendants Sony Music and GM admit that Legend is a GRAMMY Award winning 

recording artist, and admit, upon information and belief, that Legend recorded the sound 

recording entitled “Maxine’s Interlude”. Defendants Sony Music and GM deny knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in 

Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the same. 

10) Defendant Sony Music denies that it is the parent company of Columbia 

Records, that it is a corporation formed under the laws of Delaware, and that it has “agents” in 

New Jersey who distributed and promoted the allegedly infringing recording. Defendant Sony 

Music admits that, at all times material hereto, Sony Music was involved in the promotion and 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 72
4 

marketing of Legend’s recordings and conducted business in New Jersey. Defendant Sony 

Music denies each and every remaining allegation set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

Defendants GM and Legend deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

11) Defendant Sony Music admits that Columbia Records is a record label, that 

Columbia Records promoted one or more of the allegedly infringing recordings, and that, at all 

times material hereto, Columbia Records was involved in the promotion and marketing of 

Legend’s recordings. Defendant Sony Music denies the remaining allegations set forth in 

Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Defendants GM and Legend deny knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the 

Complaint, and on that basis deny the same. 

12) Defendant GM denies that it is a corporation formed under the laws of the state 

of Delaware with offices located in the State of New York, and that it was involved in the 

promotion and marketing of the allegedly infringing recording. Defendant GM denies that it 

distributed the allegedly infringing recording, was directly involved in the promotion and 

marketing of Legend, and regularly conducts business in the state of New Jersey. Defendants 

Legend and Sony Music deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the same. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 73
5 

13) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

14) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

15) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

16) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

17) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

18) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same, except that Defendant Legend denies indicating that he would listen to any demo 

recording that was presented to him under the circumstances alleged. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 74
6 

19) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

20) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the matters alleged in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same, except that the Defendants deny that Maxine’s Interlude is Track 11 on the 16-track 

platinum album Once Again, and Defendant Legend denies having knowledge that the alleged 

Where are You Now Original Demo was the original expression of Stokes, and denies that he 

misappropriated any aspects of the musical composition to produce Maxine’s Interlude. 

21) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 21 of the 

Complaint. 

22) The Defendants note that there are two paragraphs of the Complaint numbered 

22. The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in the first Paragraph numbered 22 

of the Complaint to the extent that the same purport to provide a basis for a finding of liability, 

and otherwise respectfully refer the Court to expert musicologists for an analysis of any alleged 

musical or lyrical similarities between Where are You Now and Maxine’s Interlude. 

 22) The Defendants note that there are two paragraphs of the Complaint numbered 

22. The Defendants admit only the allegations set forth in the second Paragraph numbered 22 of 

the Complaint. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 75
7 

23) The Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the 

Complaint. 

24) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 24 of the 

Complaint, except that Defendant Legend admits that he has, without the consent of Stokes, 

publicly performed Maxine’s Interlude many times in concert performances between 2006 and 

the present, and Defendants Sony Music and GM deny knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to whether without the consent of Stokes, Defendant Legend has publicly 

performed Maxine’s Interlude more than one hundred (100) times in concert performances 

between 2006 and the present. 

25) The Defendants admit that in or about April 2008, a concert DVD of an April 

2007 performance was released entitled “Live from Philadelphia,” which featured Maxine’s 

Interlude, and that DVD is offered for sale on various music online stores. The Defendants deny 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining matters 

alleged in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the same. 

26) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 26 of the 

Complaint. 

27) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 27 of the 

Complaint. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 76
8 

28) The Defendants repeat and reincorporate the responses contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 27 of this Amended Answer as though fully set forth herein. 

29) The Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny the 

same. 

30) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 30 of the 

Complaint. 

31) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 31 of the 

Complaint. 

32) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 32 of the 

Complaint. 

33) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 33 of the 

Complaint. 

34) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 34 of the 

Complaint. 

35) The Defendants repeat and reincorporate the responses contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 34 of this Amended Answer as though fully set forth herein. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 77
9 

36) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 36 of the 

Complaint. 

37) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 37 of the 

Complaint. 

38) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 38 of the 

Complaint. 

39) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 39 of the 

Complaint. 

40) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 40 of the 

Complaint. 

41) The Defendants repeat and reincorporate the responses contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 40 of this Amended Answer as though fully set forth herein. 

42) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 42 of the 

Complaint. 

43) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 43 of the 

Complaint. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 78
10 

44) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 44 of the 

Complaint. 

45) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 45 of the 

Complaint. 

46) The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 46 of the 

Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Defense

 The Complaint fails to state a claim against the Defendants upon which relief can be 

granted. 

Second Defense

 Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and/or the doctrine of 

laches. 

Third Defense

 Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel and/or waiver. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 79
11 

Fourth Defense

 The use by the Defendants of any allegedly copyrighted or other material owned and/or 

controlled by Plaintiff (of which Defendants assert that there was none) in any event, constitutes 

a fair use. 

Fifth Defense

 Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury is not immediate or 

irreparable, and Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. 

Sixth Defense

 Plaintiff has failed to join necessary and indispensible parties to this action. 

Seventh Defense

 Any alleged infringement of Plaintiff’s alleged rights (of which Defendants assert that 

there was none) in any event, was undertaken in innocently. 

Eighth Defense

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of independent creation. 

Ninth Defense

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his alleged damages, and therefore is entitled to no relief, 

or to reduced relief. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 80
12 

Tenth Defense

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 

Eleventh Defense

 Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the principles of consent, 

acquiescence, novation, and/or legal justification. 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

 Defendants hereby give notice that they intend to rely upon such other and further 

affirmative defenses as may become available during discovery in this action and reserve the 

right to amend its Answer to assert any such defenses. 

WHEREFORE, the Defendants demand judgment against the Plaintiff: (a) 

dismissing the Complaint, with prejudice, (b) denying the relief requested by Plaintiff; (c) 

awarding the Defendants their costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and disbursements in connection 

with the defense of this action; and (d) granting them such other and further relief as this Court 

deems just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Defendants demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 81
13 

Dated: New York, New York 

 September 23, 2011 

 

 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 

 By: __ s/ Dolores DiBella__________ 

 Dolores F. DiBella (DD 9637) 

 Eleven Times Square 

 New York, New York 10036-8299 

 Tel: (212) 969-3000 

 Fax: (212) 969-2900 

 ddibella@proskauer.com

 Attorneys for Defendants 

CERTIFICATION

 I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other court, 

arbitration or administrative proceeding. 

 Dated: New York, New York 

 September 23, 2011 

 

 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 

 By: __ s/ Dolores F. DiBella______ 

 Dolores F. DiBella (DD 9637) 

 Eleven Times Square 

 New York, New York 10036-8299 

 Tel: (212) 969-3000 

 Fax: (212) 969-2900 

 ddibella@proskauer.com

 Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 82
14 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused the following counsel of record for Plaintiff to be served 

with a copy of the foregoing document via ECF on this 23rd of September 2011: 

Louis D. Tambaro, Esq. 

Marks & Klein, LLP 

63 Riverside Avenue 

Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 

Telephone: (732) 747-7100 

Facsimile: (732) 219-0625 

Dated: September 23, 2011 

 __ s/ Dolores F. DiBella__________ 

 Dolores F. DiBella (DD 9637) 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 09/22/11 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 83