Opinion ID: 866348
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Song and the Claims

Text: Tilmon wrote “Smart” in 1974 and it was registered with the United States Copyright Office on March 20, 1974. On March 31, 1976, Tilmon assigned his interest in “Smart,” along with other compositions, to Plaintiff Bridgeport. On November 4, 1998, Bridgeport filed a second copyright application for “Smart,” noting that it owned the work “[b]y written assignment.” On February 18, 2004, Bridgeport employee Jane Peterer filed a copyright renewal form for “Smart,” claiming that she was the duly authorized agent of Tilmon-Jones. The registration fee was charged to Bridgeport’s account. The application lists the “Renewal Claimant” as “Janyce H. Tilmon.” According to Tilmon-Jones, however, she never authorized Bridgeport or its agents to be her agent. On January 21, 2011, Tilmon’s estate filed a renewal application for “Smart” with the United States Copyright Office. This application was granted. It lists TilmonJones and Tilmon’s two children as claimants to the copyright. B. The Action Sub Judice: Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith, No. 2:03-72211 In June 1997, Defendant rapper Rashaam A. Smith a/k/a Esham A. Smith released the song “You & Me” on the album “Bruce Wayne: Gothom City 1987.” According to Plaintiffs, the song “You & Me” unlawfully contained samples of the composition “Smart.”
On June 9, 2003, after the initial copyright ownership period had expired but prior to the expiration of the statutory limitations period, Plaintiffs sued Defendants in the Eastern District of Michigan for copyright infringement, asserting that the song “You & Me” infringed the composition “Smart.” Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith, No. 2:03- No. 12-1523 Bridgeport Music, et al. v. Smith, et al. Page 4 cv-72211 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2003). This action was filed before Judge Borman (“Judge Borman” or “District Court”). Defendants did not file an answer. On August 16, 2004, Judge Borman entered default judgments against Defendant Reel Life Productions and Smith. On March 9, 2005, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants. The default judgments required Defendants to pay certain sums to Bridgeport, and declared Plaintiffs “the 100% owner of the entirety of Defendant Reel Life Productions’ ownership interest in the copyright in the infringing compositions and sound recordings effective as of the date of the creation of the composition.” The default judgment against Smith declared Plaintiffs “the 100% owner of the entirety of Defendant Esham’s ownership interest in the copyright in the infringing compositions and sound recordings effective as of the date of the creation of the composition.” On March 11, 2005, Plaintiffs recorded the default judgment against Smith with the United States Copyright Office.
On March 9, 2011, nearly seven years after Judge Borman entered the default judgments, Tilmon-Jones, a nonparty to the original underlying action, filed a motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), (5), and (6), asking Judge Borman to set aside the judgments on the grounds that she was the copyright owner at the time the lawsuit was filed, since the renewal copyright interest in “Smart” had reverted to her by operation of law as of January 1, 2003. Specifically, she argued that Plaintiffs lacked standing when they filed the lawsuit, rendering the judgments void. On September 27, 2011, Judge Borman denied Tilmon-Jones’s Rule 60(b) motion, holding that Tilmon-Jones did not have standing because she had not shown that she was “strongly affected” by the judgment or made a strong showing that the default judgments were obtained by fraud. Judge Borman also noted that Tilmon-Jones was “fully able to sue Plaintiffs and have her rights to ‘Smart’ fully adjudicated,” since she No. 12-1523 Bridgeport Music, et al. v. Smith, et al. Page 5 had already filed a complaint, which was then pending before Judge Friedman.3 Judge Borman therefore declined to address Tilmon-Jones’s arguments for vacating the default judgments under Rule 60(b) “because [Tilmon-Jones] lacks standing under the Rule.”
On October 11, 2011, Tilmon-Jones filed a motion for reconsideration. She raised a new argument, namely that she had standing to bring her motion under a “legal representative” theory, and again asserted that Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the original action. On December 12, 2011, Judge Borman denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that Tilmon-Jones had waived the legal representative argument by failing to raise it in her initial Rule 60(b) motion or at oral argument. Judge Borman addressed it anyway, and determined that Tilmon-Jones’s legal representative argument, based on privity, failed because it contradicted her argument that the default judgments should be set aside under Rule 60(b) because Bridgeport was not her agent and therefore lacked standing. Thus, Judge Borman held that Tilmon-Jones did not have standing as Bridgeport’s legal representative pursuant to Rule 60(b). These two rulings by Judge Borman are the subject of this appeal.
On October 24, 2011, before Judge Borman had ruled on her motion for reconsideration, Tilmon-Jones filed another motion for relief from the order of the default judgments, based on a “fraud on the court” theory pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3). In this motion, Tilmon-Jones claimed that Plaintiffs’ counsel knew that Bridgeport no longer owned the musical composition “Smart” when they filed the action. On February 22, 2012, Judge Borman dismissed this motion, finding that, even if she had standing, Tilmon-Jones had failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of fraud. Tilmon-Jones did not appeal this ruling. 3 As discussed below, this matter was later reassigned to Judge O’Meara. No. 12-1523 Bridgeport Music, et al. v. Smith, et al. Page 6
On January 11, 2012, Tilmon-Jones filed a notice of appeal. As noted, she appeals the September 27, 2011 opinion and order denying her motion for relief from an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and the December 12, 2011 opinion and order denying her motion for reconsideration. C. The Prior Action4 On September 14, 2006, Tilmon-Jones, individually and as a personal representative of the Estate of Abrim Tilmon, Jr., sued Armen Boladian (“Boladian”), President of Bridgeport, and Bridgeport, in the Eastern District of Michigan, for copyright infringement, conversion, and breach of contracts. See Tilmon-Jones v. 4 We take judicial notice of the 2006 Action pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), which allows a court to take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” “This standard applies to appellate courts taking judicial notice of facts supported by documents not included in the record on appeal.” United States v. Ferguson, 681 F.3d 826, 834 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Evid 201(f) advisory committee’s note (1972)). In addition, we take judicial notice of two other similar actions whose decisions were rendered after Judge Borman issued his decision on January 11, 2011: Tilmon-Jones v. Bridgeport Music, Inc.; Case No. 5:11-cv-13002 (E.D. Mich) (“2011 Action”), and the “Tennessee Motions.” The 2011 Action was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan. On July 13, 2011, four months after she filed the Rule 60(b) motion, Tilmon-Jones and her children filed a complaint against Bridgeport and its president, and several other record companies, including Westbound and Southfield, seeking a declaration of ownership of numerous songs, including “Smart,” by Tilmon. Tilmon-Jones v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., No. 11-cv-13002 (E.D. Mich., filed July 13, 2011). The 2011 complaint alleged that Defendants wrongfully claimed ownership of numerous musical works by Tilmon, even though copyrights in these musical works have reverted, as a matter of law, to Tilmon’s estate. This action, which was originally assigned to Judge Friedman, was reassigned to Judge O’Meara on January 20, 2012. On September 26, 2012, Judge O’Meara dismissed this action as barred by the release clause in the agreement that settled the 2006 Action, and res judicata, because there was a final decision on the merits of the 2006 Action, the same parties were involved, and Tilmon-Jones could have litigated issues related to copyright infringement of “Smart” in the 2006 action. He also awarded Defendants their reasonable attorney fees and costs in defending the action “[a]s a deterrent against future misconduct.” On August 25, 2011, Tilmon-Jones filed Rule 60(b) motions in seven actions filed by Plaintiffs in 2001 in the Middle District of Tennessee, claiming that she became the legal owner of all copyright interest in “Smart,” as of January 1, 2003. She was not a party to those seven actions. Tilmon-Jones also filed Rule 60(d)(3) motions for relief based on fraud on the court in each of the seven cases. On March 7, 2012, Magistrate Judge Brown denied both motions in all seven cases, for several reasons. He found that: (1) Bridgeport was the owner of the copyright to the song “Smart” when it filed the seven cases in 2001, (2) the district court in Nashville had subject matter jurisdiction in the Nashville suits, which Bridgeport brought as the copyright owner of “Smart,” (3) the settlement agreement between the parties in the 2006 Action was “a full and complete release of Bridgeport for any and all claims that could have been brought as a result of the Michigan litigation,” and Tilmon-Jones was or should have been aware of the fact that the release applied to all 37 songs referenced in that litigation, (4) res judicata or claim preclusion applied even if the release were not fully operable, because Tilmon-Jones could have litigated her claims in the 2006 Action, and (5) the motion was not brought “within a reasonable time” as required by Rule 60(b), since judgment had been entered on June 15, 2005. Judge Brown also denied Tilmon-Jones’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion. Tilmon-Jones did not appeal