Page:Nealy v. Atlantic Recording.pdf/13

 that the “should have learned” analysis involves considering “a reasonably prudent person in Plaintiff’s position.” Id. at 40 (citing Sieger Suarez Architectural P’ship, Inc. v. Arquitectonica Int’l Corp., 998 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2014)); see also ''On Top Recs. Corp. v. Sunflower Ent. Co., No. 15-22664, 2015 WL 13264196, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2015) (“In infringement cases, ‘should have learned’ means whether a reasonably prudent person in Plaintiff’s position'' would have been aware of the alleged infringement.”) (emphasis added and internal quotations omitted). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Becerra’s analysis and therefore overrules Defendants’ objection that they are entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.

'VI. Whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because they obtained licenses from Butler'

Defendants’ final objection is that they are immune from suit by Plaintiffs as to the songs “Computer Language,” “I Know You Love Me,” and “Jam the Box” because Plaintiffs admitted that Butler is a co-owner of these works and Defendants obtained licenses from Butler. See Defs.’ Obj. at 19. As discussed above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit with respect to these MSP-Registered Songs. It is therefore unnecessary for the Court to reach this final argument advanced by Defendants.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [ECF No. 224] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED as supplemented herein.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts [ECF No. 193] is DENIED.

3. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Affidavits of Stevens, Knox, and Baker [ECF No. 194] is GRANTED.