Reglero v. Universal Music Group N.V.
Summary
Reglero sues Universal Music Group for copyright infringement over music recordings.
Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.
Coverage vs reality meter
Coverage events: 1P · 0D · 0N (1 article)
Latest ruling: defendant (2026-07-06)
Coverage breakdown — the articles behind the meter
1 plaintiff-favorable · 0 defendant-favorable · 0 neutral articles
The meter counts distinct coverage events, not articles: 1 plaintiff · 0 defendant · 0 neutral events — a burst of same-stance coverage counts once, however many outlets ran it.
- Argentine Singer Says Universal Illegally Distributed His MusicLaw360 · 2026-06-30
None classified yet.
Coverage sentiment vs. docket activity over time
- Court
- FLSD
- Docket no.
- 1:26-cv-24483
- Nature of suit
- Copyright
- Judge
- Jeffrey T. Kuntz
- Filed
- 2026-06-29
- Last filing
- 2026-09-25
Cause
17:0101 Copyright Infringement
Entities in this case
Docket entries
- #142026-07-07
No description on file
- #132026-07-07
No description on file
- 2026-07-07
No description on file
- #122026-07-06
PAPERLESS ORDER denying 8 9 Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic filing for Attorneys John H. Mattheessen and Heather L. Blaise. As noted by the Clerk of Court, "[t]he pro hac vice motions state Nick Medina consents to serve as local counsel... [h]owever, Nick Medina has not completed the mandatory CM/ECF training to file through the Court's electronic filing system, therefore, he does not have a CM/ECF filing account, nor does he have an email address in CM/ECF because he is not a registered user nor is he authorized to file through the Court's electronic filing system" and "[t]he Motions were electronically filed by Richard C. Wolfe who has not consented to serve as local counsel." Accordingly, the Motions, [ECF Nos. 8, 9], are DENIED. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 7/6/2026. (adn) (Entered: 07/06/2026)
- #112026-07-06
PAPERLESS ORDER denying 10 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.Plaintiffs initiated this action on June 29, 2026. See [ECF No. 1]. On July 2, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [ECF No. 10]. To date, neither Defendant has been served. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 "court[s] may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Because the Defendants in this case have yet to be served, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Motion seeking a preliminary injunction, [ECF No. 10], is premature. See, e.g., Palm Beach Cnty. Env't Coal. v. Fla., 587 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1257 (S.D. Fla. 2008) ("Plaintiffs have failed to make a showing that warrants injunctive relief. At the time of the hearing, neither [] defendant[] had been served... Therefore, the Court does not appear to have jurisdiction over the Federal Defendants in the instant action."); Smalls v. Stirling, No. 9:24-CV-03966-SAL-MHC, 2024 WL 5112075, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2024) ("The request for a preliminary injunction should be denied because it is premature as this action has not yet been served, and Defendants have not answered or otherwise plead.").Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [ECF No. 10], is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to refile pending service on Defendants. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 7/6/2026. (adn) (Entered: 07/06/2026)
- 2026-07-06
No description on file
- 2026-07-06
No description on file
- #102026-07-02
No description on file
- #92026-07-02
No description on file
- #82026-07-02
No description on file
- #72026-06-30
No description on file
- #62026-06-30
No description on file
- #52026-06-29
No description on file
- #42026-06-29
No description on file
- #32026-06-29
No description on file
- #22026-06-29
No description on file
- #12026-06-29
No description on file
- 2026-06-29
No description on file
- 2026-06-29
No description on file
Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.