Woman who sues Taylor Swift

The US district judge Aileen M. Cannon granted Kimberly Marasco's application in the Florida artist Kimberly Marasco on an extension to serve the musician Taylor Swift in a copyright lawsuit after Marasco had announced.

Marasco asked the court to extend the time for the service, to approve alternative service methods and to reimburse the costs associated with service attempts.

Cannon submitted Marasco's application for Swift until June 15th. The application was rejected for all other reasons without prejudice.

Why is it important

Copyright lawsuits against large recording artists have become increasingly common, which reflects increased control over creative property and intellectual property in the music industry. In Marasco's lawsuit, Swift claims and her employees used Marasco's poems without permission.

Marasco, who represents itself in this case, has documented her various attempts to quickly serve in legal submissions. If Marasco is unable to serve quickly with the lawsuit, it consists of the risk that Swift will be rejected from the case or the entire lawsuit.

Newsweek I turned to Marasco and a representative of Swift for a comment.

What to know?

Cannon noticed that Marasco showed a Due Diligence in her various attempts to take on, as described in the movement, but emphasized that Marasco must meet all of Florida statutes for all procedural and jurisdiction requirements if it should be replaced in the future.

Marasco has detailed unsuccessful attempts to serve Swift, including the provision of Sheriff's offices and process servers in California, Tennessee, New York and Rhode Island.

In California, security in a residence that was rejected with Swift in connection with Swift in connection with Swift has several process servers and claims that the singer is not at home. In Tennessee, a service effort provided an affidavit from the non-service, whereby the sheriff of Davidson County stated that Swift owns property at the address in question, but does not live there.

The Rhode Island's office warned that Marasco's process server is arrested for violation if further attempts were made at the location.

In a memorandum against Marasco's application, the lawyers of the accused James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone issued that Marasco had not managed to follow “obvious leads” on Swift's place of residence.

“Despite the public reporting that the artist in March in New York City in March
In 2025, the plaintiff tried a service in California on the other side of the country, “wrote the lawyers.” Similarly, the plaintiff tried in April 2025 on a property in Rhode Island, although he was aware that the house was carried out 'great' renovations (and has been for months).

The case submitted by Marasco in February claims that Taylor Swift, Universal Music Group, Republic Records, Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner used creative material from Marascos without permission. In the complaint, songs and music videos from Swift's albums quote albums loverPresent folklorePresent midnight And The department for tortured poets Like supposedly hurtful work. In this complaint, Marasco strives for damages of 25 million US dollars.

She is also involved in a related, earlier lawsuit for similar claims.

Marasco's earlier attempts to serve Swift in the original lawsuit failed, which led to Swift was released by Cannon in December 2024. The claims against the singer's production company remain unsolved.

Balridge and Wright Morrone referred to Marasco's first attempt to sue Swift in their memorandum.

“In today's second ray of the plaintiff against the artist, the plaintiff has again done the perfect service. Instead, the plaintiff asks the court for a number of relief without countering the necessary loads to show that it is justified,” said Baldridge and Wright Morrone.

In the latest lawsuit, Cannon has instructed all accused not to react if everyone was served.

In the middle of the rising costs, Marasco also requested permission to electronically submit court documents and argued that mailing and travel fees had become “stressful”. Cannon filed this application and found that Marasco was not justified for electronic submission in accordance with the applicable court rules.

What people say

Marasco previously told Newsweek: “Printing documents using my HP Inkjet printer corresponds to approximately $ 120 for ink and paper, and the frequent need to buy stocks increases the financial burden. In addition, it is time-consuming to travel to the courthouse and the shipping documents continue.”

Baldridge and Wright Morrone in a memorandum: “While the plaintiff has attempted service in various houses across the country, she seems to have ignored public reporting where the artist was, and therefore has no more 'obvious leads.'”

What happens next

Cannon needed Marasco to serve Taylor Swift until June 15 to keep the suit active. The procedure remains carried out until all the accused is properly operated.

Do you have a story that Newsweek Should cover? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact levenws@newsweek.com.