EXCLUSIVE: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards Set to Dismiss ‘Living in a Ghost Town’ Lawsuit

  • Save on computer

The Rolling Stones have filed a

  • Save on computer

Screenshot of the official YouTube video of the Rolling Stones’ 2020 track “Living in a Ghost Town”.

The Rolling Stones have filed a “motion to dismiss” in Spanish songwriter Sergio Garcia Fernandez’s copyright infringement lawsuit. The Complaint alleges several grounds for dismissal, including Plaintiff’s choice of inappropriate forum, failure to assert a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction over a European-based rights management firm.

In March, Spanish songwriter Sergio Garcia Fernandez filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in a federal court in Louisiana. Fernandez, known professionally as “Angelslang,” claimed that “recognizable and important proprietary elements” from his songs “So Sorry” (2006) and “Seed of God” (2007) appear in the Rolling Stones. rail “Life in a Ghost Town” (2020). Fernandez called for a jury trial against the defendants Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, UMG INC., BMG Rights Management LLC and Promopub BV

Now DMN has received a lawsuit filed by attorneys Mick Jagger and Keith Richards late last week. The June 30 document lists several reasons Judge Eldon E. Fallon should dismiss the copyright infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana court.

In the court filing, the Rolling Stones stated, “Plaintiff’s complaint contains numerous defects of jurisdiction, venue and forum that warrant dismissal.”

“Fernandez’s lawsuit alleges that in 2013 he allegedly shared a CD of non-American works written six or seven years earlier with an unnamed immediate family member of Mr. Jagger. The defendants deny the allegations of copyright infringement made by the plaintiff.”

The 26-page court document also notes that Fernandez is a Spanish citizen suing the defendants for alleged infringement of non-US works (compositions and recordings). “(Works that are) not created in the United States or registered with the United States Copyright Office.”

“The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) because it fails to adequately assert a claim of copyright infringement. Plaintiff failed to claim an exception to the copyright requirement for its non-US resident works. This justifies the full dismissal of the FAC.”

Other reasons listed as grounds for dismissal include lack of jurisdiction. The filing states: “The court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant Promopub BV.”

“Defendant Promopub is a Dutch limited company with no contacts in the United States. Promopub holds copyright interest in certain musical compositions written by Jagger and Richards and collects and distributes the publishing revenues generated by the musical compositions.”

“(Promopub) does not conduct business in the United States. All books and records related to this publishing revenue as well as all Promopub employees are located in the Netherlands.”

The motion to dismiss also challenges the plaintiff’s choice of venue, stating, “The jurisdictional venue is inappropriate because none of the defendants reside or otherwise reside in that county.”

Fernandez filed the copyright infringement lawsuit in Louisiana, and the Rolling Stones allege, “The only person with any connection to Louisiana is plaintiff’s attorney, who resides in New Orleans.” The location of his office is useful for establishing a local interest or controversy not relevant.”

It goes on to say, “Contrary to what the FAC claims, Mr. Jagger and Mr. Richards are both British citizens.” Mr. Jagger is not a US resident and Mr. Richards is a Connecticut resident. The Rolling Stones have not performed in Louisiana since a performance at the Superdome on their 2019 world tour. They have only previously performed in this district three times, namely in 1978, 1981 and 1984. They have not targeted any of their activities or specifically towards this district.”

The rock band also added, “The Accused Work was written and recorded outside of this county and none of these defendants directed any Accused Work contacts into this county.”

“The more appropriate forum for this case would be a court in Europe as the plaintiff, a Spanish citizen and resident, alleges infringement of his works outside the US against the defendants, all of whom are European residents. In short, both the private and the public interest are in favor of dismissal.”

“Although each of the above grounds warrants a dismissal, should the court change jurisdiction to the Southern District of New York, should the court not dismiss the FAC. It was improper for the plaintiff to try this case in that county when he could have tried it in the Southern District of New York.”