Woman suing Taylor Swift might have missed key deadline

Attorneys asked the court to dismiss a defendant from a copyright infringement case against Taylor Swift and several others, arguing that the plaintiff missed a service deadline in the lawsuit.

Florida artist Kimberly Marasco failed to meet the court’s extended deadline of October 15 to serve songwriter Aaron Dessner with the lawsuit, his lawyers alleged in a response filed Monday.

Newsweek reached out to Marasco and attorneys representing Dessner for comment.

Why It Matters

Marasco, who is representing herself, filed a second amended complaint against Swift, Dessner, Universal Music Group and Republic Records on October 14. She alleged that Swift and her co-defendants copied her poetry in lyrics and visuals from multiple albums, including Lover, Folklore, Midnights and The Tortured Poets Department.

The lawsuit is the second Marasco has filed against Swift. Marasco first filed a lawsuit against Swift and her production company last year. Swift was dismissed from the case after Marasco failed to serve the lawsuit within the time frame provided by the court.

The dismissal came after the court granted Marasco “one final opportunity” to serve Swift and submit proof.

The case against Taylor Swift Productions was dismissed with prejudice last month.

What To Know

Last month, Dessner’s attorneys filed a motion to quash an attempt to serve him with the lawsuit.

An affidavit of service filed earlier this year said Dessner was served with the lawsuit in New York on March 11. The affidavit alleges that the person completed the service “by handing the following documents to an individual identified as Dessner.”

Dessner stated in a declaration that an unknown woman pulled into his driveway on March 11.

“At no point did the individual identify herself or why she was present,” Dessner said.

Dessner said that he stepped outside after hearing his dog bark, then returned inside because he did not know the person in his driveway. He said the person left the property without handing him any documents.

“To date, no documents have been personally delivered to Dessner, to someone of suitable age and discretion who resides with Dessner, or to an agent authorized to receive service of process on behalf of Dessner,” his attorneys wrote in the motion to quash.

Marasco opposed the motion, arguing that the court accepted the service attempt as valid.

Judge Aileen Cannon granted the motion to quash and gave Marasco “one final opportunity” to serve Dessner. She set a deadline of October 15 and said, “No further extensions of this deadline will be permitted.”

Marasco asked the court to reconsider, arguing that the process server provided a physical description of the individual served, a record of conversation with him and pictures of his house and vehicles. Cannon denied the request.

“Plaintiff’s continued reliance on the same insufficient affidavit of service … which Defendant Dessner rebutted, is equally as unconvincing now as it was in the Court’s prior Order,” Cannon wrote in an order.

What People Are Saying

James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone, attorneys for Aaron Dessner, in a response filed Monday: “While it is unclear whether any response to the Notice and Supplemental Notice is required, Defendants do so here in an abundance of caution to preserve their position that Plaintiff’s service attempt on Dessner was, and is, invalid … And, to make explicit that because Plaintiff has failed to effect service on Dessner by the Court’s extended deadline of October 15, 2025, Dessner should be dismissed from this Action.”

Kimberly Marasco, in a motion for reconsideration dated September 29: “Plaintiff further notes that if the Court declines to reconsider its prior ruling and again dismisses Defendant Dessner for alleged insufficient service of process, despite the Sworn Affidavit of Service establishing personal delivery, Plaintiff will be substantially prejudiced.”