Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/305267320/Sheridan-v-IHeartMedia-opinion-pdf
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 23:59:05+00:00

Document:
Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc. See Sheridan v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al, No.
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(a), Defendant iHeartMedias motion is granted.
in the complaint. ECF No. 1.
rhythm and blues music (the Pre-1972 Recordings). Id.
exchange for licenses to publicly perform them. id.
Defendant iHeartMedia, Inc., which operates under the name iHeartRadio, id.
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Id.
non-subscription, customizable music streaming stations. Id.
revenue in part by selling advertising on its terrestrial and online radio stations. Id.
radio stations, which reach listeners throughout the United States, including in New Jersey. Id.
recordings by means of a digital audio transformation. 17 U.S.C.
on or afier February 15, 1972, ECF No.
created before February 15, 1972. Id.; see also 17 U.S.C.
Inc., 194 A. 631 (Pa. 1937)).
protection to sound recordings, see Def. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 9 at 2-5.
Central District of California, Southern District of New York, and Southern District of Florida.
2013); Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XliRadio, Inc., No. 13-cv-5784, ECF No. 1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
owners. See ECF No. 8 at 1.
their Recordings. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XlvlRadio, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 325, 338 (S.D.N.Y.
exclusive right to publicly perform, but not to reproduce, their Recordings. flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
appeal pending, No. 15-55287 (9th Cir.); Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius X?vlRadio, Inc., 2014 U.S.
Recordings. Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, inc., 2015 WL 3852692, at *5..6 (S.D. Fla.
pending before the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, respectively.
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.
distributed, or otherwise exploited without license or authorization, Id.
and Class Members, and publicly performing those Recordings to its users for its own gain, Id.
advertising on its broadcasts. Id.
resolution of the Flo & Eddie cases currently on appeal. ECF No. 8 at 1-2 (citing Sheridan v.
ECF No. 23; Sheridan v. iHeartMedia, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-04067-PSG-GJS, ECF No. 41 (C.D.
Sheridan v. iHeartMedia, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-04067-PSG-GJS (C.D. Cal. filed May 29, 2015).
mandates by the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in the Flo & Eddie cases. ECF No. 8.
ruling only. Id. at 5-6.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants motion to stay on february 5, 2016. ECF No.
18. Defendant filed a reply brief in further support on february 19, 2016. ECF No. 19.
inherent in every court to dispose of cases so as to promote their fair and efficient adjudication.
Pharm., LLC v. Call, Inc., 2005 WL 563726 at *8 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2005); see also Aldshev v.
Kapustin, 23 F. Supp. 3d 440, 446 (D.N.J. 2014); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.
Supp. 2d 535, 541-42 (D.N.J 2008).
(Sirius Xlvi Radio), ECf NO. 17 (Pandora).
those of the informally stayed Northern District of Illinois cases.
necessarily controlling of the action before the court.).
granting a stay instead of relying on submissions that advance cases which may be overruled.
does not issue a stay. ECF No. 18 at 6 (citing Akishev, 23 F. Supp. 3d at 446, Nussbaum v.
Defendant. The Court will grant a stay.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.