Den v. Renaissance Marketing Corp., No. 14-cv-2999, 2014 BL 303007 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2014).
In case concerning defendants' alleged use of the "Super Bowl Shuffle" without plaintiff' authorization, a federal court in Illinois held that the case should remain in federal court as preempted by the federal Copyright Act. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court was denied.
The Super Bowl Shuffle is a song and music video trumpeting the success of the 1985 Chicago Bears. Plaintiffs initially brought a case in Illinois state court alleging that defendants were not assignees of the record label's interest and therefore defendants were improperly benefiting from the marketing, distribution and licensing of the song without authorization. Defendants removed the case to federal court, claiming that the state-law claims (for constructive trust, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, and accounting) were preempted by the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs moved to remand to state court.
The Court held that removal of the case to federal court, under 28 USC 1441, was proper. The Court found that the Copyright Act preempted the state law causes of action for conversion, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. 17 USC 301. Plaintiffs were not just seeking to enforce the royalty agreement with the label, as defendants allegedly were improper assignees of the contract. The rights seeking plaintiff sought to enforce were really copyright claims, protecting plaintiffs "against the world." Other claims -- for constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and an accounting -- were not preempted, but the Court retained supplemental jurisdiction.
Showing posts with label Supplemental Jurisdiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supplemental Jurisdiction. Show all posts
November 4, 2014
May 27, 2014
Copyright Claim Dismissed Against Usher Because No Substantial Similarity
Edwards et al. v Usher Raymond IV et al., No. 1:13-cv-07985-DLC (S.D.N.Y. filed 05/23/14) [Doc. 36].
Plaintiffs alleged that a song recorded and published by defendants, including Usher, willfully copied the plaintiffs' original musical composition. On defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for copyright infringement because the two songs were not substantially similar as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the sole copyright infringement claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim for breach of contract.
First, the Court found that the phrase "caught up," which is the title of both songs, is not eligible for copyright protection because it is a common phrase. Second, the Court found that lyrics from the two songs expressing the ideas in question were not substantially similar. Third, the Court ignored bare legal conclusions in the complaint that the songs are substantially similar. Lastly, the Court also took a "holistic" approach, and determined that the two songs' music and lyrics, considered as a whole, confirmed a lack of substantial similarity.
Plaintiffs alleged that a song recorded and published by defendants, including Usher, willfully copied the plaintiffs' original musical composition. On defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for copyright infringement because the two songs were not substantially similar as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the sole copyright infringement claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim for breach of contract.
First, the Court found that the phrase "caught up," which is the title of both songs, is not eligible for copyright protection because it is a common phrase. Second, the Court found that lyrics from the two songs expressing the ideas in question were not substantially similar. Third, the Court ignored bare legal conclusions in the complaint that the songs are substantially similar. Lastly, the Court also took a "holistic" approach, and determined that the two songs' music and lyrics, considered as a whole, confirmed a lack of substantial similarity.
April 26, 2013
KC Royalties Claim Booted From Federal Court
Smith v Casey, No. 1:12-cv-23795 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2013) [Doc. 84].
The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claim for breach of contract relating to royalties, and "declines Plaintiff’s ill-formulated request for declaratory relief."
Plaintiff's copyright claim was previously dismissed, leaving only a state-law breach of contract claim and a request for declaratory relief. The Court found that because "Plaintiff’s timely claims for breach-of-contract will not become time-barred as a result of this Court’s dismissal without prejudice", it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Moreover, there was no diversity, and very little discovery had taken place. The Court also rejected the declaratory judgment claim, stating it was dangerously close to a request for issuance of an advisory opinion.
The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claim for breach of contract relating to royalties, and "declines Plaintiff’s ill-formulated request for declaratory relief."
Plaintiff's copyright claim was previously dismissed, leaving only a state-law breach of contract claim and a request for declaratory relief. The Court found that because "Plaintiff’s timely claims for breach-of-contract will not become time-barred as a result of this Court’s dismissal without prejudice", it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Moreover, there was no diversity, and very little discovery had taken place. The Court also rejected the declaratory judgment claim, stating it was dangerously close to a request for issuance of an advisory opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
