A copyright lawsuit against Taylor Swift, brought by Florida artist Kimberly Marasco, could be dismissed before Christmas due to Marasco’s failure to serve the singer properly. The lawsuit, filed earlier this year, alleges that Swift’s songs and music videos contain “creative elements” that were copied from Marasco’s work without permission or credit. The claim focuses on materials from Swift’s albums Lover, Folklore, Midnights, and The Tortured Poets Department, with Marasco seeking over $7 million in damages.
Seven months after filing the case, Marasco has been unable to serve Swift with the necessary legal documents. Judge Aileen Cannon, known for presiding over former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case, is now considering dismissing the lawsuit. Marasco has requested an extension and permission to use alternative methods to serve Swift, but Swift’s legal team is pushing back.
Swift’s Lawyers Argue for Dismissal
Attorneys Aaron S. Blynn and Katherine Wright Morrone, representing Swift, have repeatedly asked the court to dismiss the case, citing Marasco’s failure to meet legal service requirements. In August and September, Judge Cannon declined to dismiss the case but is now re-evaluating the matter as deadlines loom.
Swift’s legal team contends that Marasco has not demonstrated “good cause” to justify extending the deadline for serving the singer. “Good cause” is a legal standard requiring plaintiffs to show factors outside their control—such as illness, natural disasters, or deliberate evasion—that prevented proper service.
Blynn and Wright Morrone argue that Marasco’s reasons do not meet this standard. They state that the court sets a high bar for establishing good cause and emphasize that neglect, lack of diligence, ignorance of procedural rules, or mistakes are insufficient grounds for an extension.
Plaintiff’s Attempts to Justify Delays
Marasco has argued that “factors beyond her control” have hindered her ability to serve Swift, but Swift’s attorneys claim she has failed to provide specific or valid examples to satisfy legal precedent.
The attorneys also allege that Marasco has repeatedly sought alternative service methods to sidestep the consequences of failing to meet the service deadline. They argue that her requests are attempts to avoid the court’s stringent requirements for proper service.
“Nothing has changed since this Court last denied Plaintiff’s requests,” Blynn and Wright Morrone wrote in their filing. “The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against [Swift] for failure to perfect service of process.”
What’s Next?
Judge Cannon is now deciding whether to grant Marasco more time or dismiss the case outright. If the lawsuit is dismissed, it would mark a significant setback for Marasco and a win for Swift’s legal team.
For now, the case hangs in the balance as the court weighs whether Marasco’s reasons meet the strict legal standards for extending deadlines in such matters. If Judge Cannon sides with Swift’s attorneys, the lawsuit could end before the holiday season.
- Famous Dave’s Closes 2 Washington Locations Despite Recent Renovations - December 12, 2024
- Will the next SSDI payments in December bring the Social Security COLA increase in 2025? Find it out here - December 12, 2024
- U.S. retirees to get a new payment of $1,927 from Social Security today, or in 7 days - December 12, 2024
