Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, Civil Action No. 14–3089.

Citation106 F.Supp.3d 581
Decision Date06 May 2015
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 14–3089.
Parties Michael SKIDMORE as Trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust v. LED ZEPPELIN, et al.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)

106 F.Supp.3d 581

Michael SKIDMORE as Trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust
v.
LED ZEPPELIN, et al.

Civil Action No. 14–3089.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed May 6, 2015.


106 F.Supp.3d 583

Francis Malofiy, Francis Alexander, LLC, Media, PA, for Michael Skidmore.

Michael Eidel, Fox Rothschild LLP, Warrington, PA, Helene M. Freeman, Phillips Nizer LLP, New York, NY, Matthew S. Olesh, Fox Rothschild LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Peter J. Anderson, Law Offices of Peter J. Anderson PC, Santa Monica, CA, for Led Zeppelin, et al.

MEMORANDUM

JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Michael Skidmore, as trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust, brings claims for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement against the living members of the band Led Zeppelin (James Patrick "Jimmy" Page, Robert Plant, and John Paul Jones) and various music industry companies associated with Led Zeppelin. The corporate Defendants are (1) Super Hype Publishing, Inc., a

106 F.Supp.3d 584

publishing company owned and managed by Page that publishes the musical compositions of Led Zeppelin and Page; (2) Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., a global music publishing company that publishes and administers Super Hype's catalog of songs, including Led Zeppelin's music; (3) Atlantic Recording Corporation, the record company that manufactured, sold, and distributed Led Zeppelin IV, the album containing the allegedly infringing song "Stairway to Heaven" and the owner of the master recordings of Led Zeppelin IV and "Stairway to Heaven"; (4) Warner Music Group Corp. (WMG), the parent company of Defendants Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation, and Rhino Entertainment Company; and (5) Rhino Entertainment Company, a company that develops WMG's catalog of artists in the United States and provides support and assistance to the WMG's frontline labels.

Defendants have moved to either dismiss or transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. For the following reasons, Defendants' motions will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges Led Zeppelin copied significant portions of its iconic 1971 song "Stairway to Heaven" from Randy Craig Wolfe's copyrighted guitar composition "Taurus," and that all of the Defendants have exploited and continue to exploit "Taurus" as "Stairway to Heaven." Plaintiff sues all Defendants for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement and also brings a claim for equitable relief in the form of an order directing Defendants and the Copyright Office to include Wolfe as a writer of "Stairway to Heaven."

Defendants filed motions to dismiss or transfer the case, one on behalf of the individual Defendants (Page, Plant, and Jones) and the other on behalf of the corporate Defendants. All Defendants ask this Court to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The corporate Defendants also ask the Court to either dismiss the case for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or to transfer the case to the Central District of California, where three of the five corporate Defendants have their principal places of business and where all Defendants consent to jurisdiction and venue. If the Court finds jurisdiction and venue are proper in this District, all Defendants ask the Court to transfer the case to the Central District of California "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses" and "in the interest of justice" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff opposes the motions and, in the event that the Court requires more facts to resolve the personal jurisdiction issue, seeks leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

DISCUSSION

Venue in a copyright action is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), which provides that an action under the federal copyright laws "may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found." A defendant in a copyright action "may be found" wherever the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction; thus, "venue in a copyright action is proper in any judicial district in which the defendant would be amenable to personal jurisdiction if the district were a separate state." Blackburn v. Walker Oriental Rug Galleries, Inc., 999 F.Supp. 636, 638 (E.D.Pa.1998) (citations omitted).

"[A] District Court typically exercises personal jurisdiction according to the law of the state where it sits." O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir.2007) ; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A). Pennsylvania's long-arm statute

106 F.Supp.3d 585

permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction "to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States" and "based on the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States." 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5322(b). In order for the Court to have jurisdiction over the Defendants in this case, they must have "certain minimum contacts with ... [Pennsylvania] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." O'Connor, 496 F.3d at 316–17 (alterations in original) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) ). Once the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is raised, "the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that personal jurisdiction exists." Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 295–96 (3d Cir.2007). Where the court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff "need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction and ... [is] entitled to have [its] allegations taken as true and all factual disputes drawn in [its] favor." O'Connor, 496 F.3d at 316 (quoting Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir.2004) ). A plaintiff meets its burden to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction by demonstrating "with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state." Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992) (citation omitted). Because a Rule 12(b)(2) motion "is inherently a matter which requires resolution of factual issues outside the pleadings, i.e. whether in personam jurisdiction actually lies," the plaintiff may not rely on "bare pleadings alone" but must "respond with actual proofs, not mere allegations." Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 66 n. 9 (3d Cir.1984) ; see also Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir.2009) ( "[O]nce a defendant has raised a jurisdictional defense, the plaintiff must prov[e] by affidavits or other competent evidence that jurisdiction is proper." (second alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

There are two categories of personal jurisdiction: (1) general or "all-purpose" jurisdiction, which a court may exercise to hear "any and all claims" against a defendant when the defendant's affiliations with the forum state are "so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State," Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 317, 66 S.Ct. 154 ), and (2) specific jurisdiction, which "depends on an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy" and is "confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction," id. (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

For general jurisdiction to exist, "the contacts between the defendant and the forum need not be specifically related to the underlying cause of action," Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 368 n. 1 (3d Cir.2002), but "only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there," Daimler AG v. Bauman, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). For an individual, "the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile," id. (quoting Goodyear, 131 S.Ct. at 2853–54 ), and for a corporation, the paradigm fora are its "place of incorporation and principal place of business," id. The Supreme Court has made clear that only in an "exceptional case" would an individual be "essentially at home" in a forum other that of its domicile. Id. at 761 n. 19.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Skidmore v. Zeppelin
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 9 Marzo 2020
    ...District of Pennsylvania and later transferred to the proper venue, the Central District of California. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin , 106 F. Supp. 3d 581, 589–90 (E.D. Pa. 2015).3 The duration of the notes in the Taurus deposit copy are halved in this exhibit to allow a side-by-side comparison......
  • Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 28 Septiembre 2018
    ...District of Pennsylvania, but the case was subsequently transferred to the Central District of California. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin , 106 F.Supp.3d 581, 589–90 (E.D. Pa. 2015). Skidmore alleged direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement. He also alleged a claim titled "Right......
  • Wabote v. Ude
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 21 Octubre 2021
    ...... Court has general jurisdiction over Ude, which means it may. “hear ‘any and all claims' against”. him, Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin , 106 F.Supp.3d 581,. 585 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires. Operations, S.A. v. Brown , 564 U.S. 915, 919 ......
  • Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc. v. Tatro
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 29 Diciembre 2015
    ...Elec. Co. v. Deutz AG , 270 F.3d 144, 150 (3d Cir.2001) (citation omitted).70 O'Connor , 496 F.3d at 325.71 Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin , 106 F.Supp.3d 581, 584 (E.D.Pa.2015).72 Blackburn v. Walker Oriental Rug Galleries, Inc. , 999 F.Supp. 636, 638 (E.D.Pa.1998).73 (ECF Doc. No. 24-1, Exs. 2-......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Recalibrating Functional Claiming: A Way Forward
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...A History of Music 187–91 (2017), https://law.duke.edu/musiccomic. 3. Sam Smith Explains , supra note 1. 4. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 106 F. Supp. 3d 581 (E.D. Pa. 2015). 5. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 905 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2018). 6. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 925 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2019). 7......
  • Avoid On-Sale Bar by Filing Early Both in the United States and China Post-Helsinn
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...A History of Music 187–91 (2017), https://law.duke.edu/musiccomic. 3. Sam Smith Explains , supra note 1. 4. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 106 F. Supp. 3d 581 (E.D. Pa. 2015). 5. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 905 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2018). 6. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 925 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2019). 7......
  • Virtual Influencers: Stretching the Boundaries of Intellectual Property Governing Digital Creations
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...A History of Music 187–91 (2017), https://law.duke.edu/musiccomic. 3. Sam Smith Explains , supra note 1. 4. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 106 F. Supp. 3d 581 (E.D. Pa. 2015). 5. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 905 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2018). 6. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 925 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2019). 7......
  • Composing the Law: An Interview with Derrick Wang, Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...A History of Music 187–91 (2017), https://law.duke.edu/musiccomic. 3. Sam Smith Explains , supra note 1. 4. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 106 F. Supp. 3d 581 (E.D. Pa. 2015). 5. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 905 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2018). 6. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 925 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2019). 7......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT