Case 1:18-cv-25474-RAR Document 256 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2021 Page 11 of 14
the transfer from Butler to MSI, Plaintiffs’ failure to produce the written agreement is not fatal at this stage. See Stillwater Ltd. v. Basilotta, No. 16-01895, 2019 WL 1960277, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019) (“Unlike in cases where the dispute centered around the failure to transfer copyrights via a writing pursuant to § 204(a), here, there is evidence that a writing was used to effectuate the transfer of the copyrights … , but that writing has been lost. Under the circumstances, the court finds that [Plaintiff] has shown title of ownership for purposes of standing.”); Caravan, Ltd. v. Karin Stevens, Inc., No. 00-07664, 2001 WL 1426698, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2001) (“The purpose of section 204(a) … is to protect copyright owners from persons mistakenly or fraudulently claiming that a copyright was transferred orally, not to enable third parties to infringe on transferred copyrights whenever there is no formal writing effecting the transfer.”).
V. Whether Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations
In the Report, Magistrate Judge Becerra concluded that the undisputed facts do not support a finding that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Defendants contend that in reaching this conclusion, Magistrate Judge Becerra incorrectly applied the “express repudiation” standard that the Eleventh Circuit rejected in Webster v. Dean Guitars, 955 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020), by which a claim accrues when there is an express repudiation of ownership by one party against the other. Defs.’ Obj. at 9–10. Defendants argue that under the correct standard set by Webster—that “an ownership claim accrues when the plaintiff learns, or should as a reasonable person have learned, that the defendant was violating his ownership rights,” 955 F.3d at 1276—Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred.
Defendants insist that the following undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff had both actual and constructive knowledge of their claims. First, Defendants cite a June 9, 2008 meeting between Nealy and third-party Robert Crane where Nealy objected to Crane’s distribution of the
Page 11 of 14
