Photo Credit: Chrisallmeid
After multiple years of back-and-forth litigation, Cardi B and Warner Music have prevailed in an infringement showdown centering on “Enough (Miami).”
That victory came to light in an order from Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., who tossed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. We covered said complaint immediately after its July 2024 filing in a Texas federal court.
In brief, across two amended actions, producer plaintiffs Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar (known publicly as Kemikal956) accused Cardi B (real name Belcalis Almánzar) of borrowing from their “Greasy Frybread” effort without permission to create “Enough (Miami).”
Unsurprisingly, this included contributory and vicarious infringement claims against the major label defendant. However, the filing parties also sued for defamation, unfair competition, IP misappropriation, and more.
Plus, the plaintiffs were looking to add additional claims yet – common law plagiarism and unjust enrichment among them – in a third amended action. But Judge Rodriguez denied the request when tossing the suit without prejudice.
As for the dismissal itself, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had submitted “insufficient jurisdictional evidence to establish general jurisdiction” over Cardi B and Warner Music.
Regarding the relevance of the artist’s Lone Star State shows, the judge found that Cardi B hadn’t “targeted Texas for concert performances, rather than simply including Texas venues within a broader concert tour in numerous states.”
“Almanzar’s performances in Texas are not distinct from her performances in those other states, rendering the concerts in Texas insufficient to establish general jurisdiction,” Judge Rodriguez wrote.
And when it comes to Warner and Atlantic, that they “published musical works online so as to make them available in every state does not reveal a targeting of the Texas market,” according to the legal text.
Finally, the judge determined that the mentioned non-infringement claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.
The defamation allegation – that “Enough (Miami)” caused the plaintiffs “reputational harm within the music industry and caused them to be blacklisted” – came up short because Kemikal956 didn’t demonstrate that the track “represents a reference” to the plaintiffs, for instance.
Similarly, an unfair competition claim “falls within the subject matter of copyright,” per the text. What about the central vicarious and contributory infringement allegations? Judge Rodriguez described the plaintiffs’ lack of a “Greasy Frybread” copyright – when Cardi B allegedly lifted the work – as “fatal to their claims.”
“Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that they obtained a copyright for ‘Greasy Frybread’ before Defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct,” the judge wrote. “This omission proves fatal to their claims for vicarious infringement and contributory infringement. The Copyright Act would preempt any such claim based on state law, and the absence of a copyright renders the claims defective.”
Back to the above-highlighted motion to submit a third amended suit, Judge Rodriguez in rejecting the push explained that the “proposed amendments would be futile.” These amendments, the judge summed up, “do not cure the deficiencies in the claims within the” action’s current iteration.